Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey.

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard. METHODS: Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Expert-approved best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care (SedPall).

BACKGROUND: The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue's great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall ("From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation - Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care") with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area. DESIGN: Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%. RESULTS: Ten experts commented on the recommendations' first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics "indications", "intent/purpose [of sedation]", "decision-making", "information and consent", "medication and type of sedation", "monitoring", "management of fluids and nutrition", "continuing other measures", "support for relatives", and "team support". The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues. CONCLUSION: Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations' implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Palliative care as a digital working world (PALLADiUM) - A mixed-method research protocol.

BACKGROUND: In Palliative Care, actors from different professional backgrounds work together and exchange case-specific and expert knowledge and information. Since Palliative Care is traditionally distant from digitalization due to its holistically person-centered approach, there is a lack of suitable concepts enabling digitalization regarding multi-professional team processes. Yet, a digitalised information and collaboration environment geared to the requirements of palliative care and the needs of the members of the multi-professional team might facilitate communication and collaboration processes and improve information and knowledge flows. Taking this chance, the presented three-year project, PALLADiUM, aims to improve the effectiveness of Palliative Care teams by jointly sharing available inter-subjective knowledge and orientation-giving as well as action-guiding practical knowledge. Thus, PALLADiUM will explore the potentials and limitations of digitally supported communication and collaboration solutions. METHODS: PALLADiUM follows an open and iterative mixed methods approach. First, ethnographic methods - participant observations, interviews, and focus groups - aim to explore knowledge and information flow in investigating Palliative Care units as well as the requirements and barriers to digitalization. Second, to extend this body, the analysis of the historical hospital data provides quantitative insights. Condensing all findings results in a to-be work system. Adhering to the work systems transformation method, a technical prototype including artificial intelligence components will enhance the collaborative teamwork in the Palliative Care unit. DISCUSSION: PALLADiUM aims to deliver decisive new insights into the preconditions, processes, and success factors of the digitalization of a medical working environment as well as communication and collaboration processes in multi-professional teams. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively at DRKS (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) Registration-ID: DRKS0025356 Date of registration: 03.06.21.

Documentation of Sedation in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review of Requirements, Recommendations, and Templates.

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life.

Sedation in Palliative Care­a Clinically Oriented Overview of Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations

BACKGROUND: The appropriate provision of sedation as a last resort for the relief of suffering in palliative care is dealt with variably in actual practice. This article is intended as an overview of practically relevant information found in treatment recommendations and guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, and a manual search was carried out online. Recommendations that were not available in either German or English, or that were specific to pediatric practice, were excluded. Publication quality was assessed with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II). The recommendations in the documents were qualitatively evaluated. RESULTS: 29 publications (11 journal articles, 18 other) of varying quality according to AGREE II were included. All recommendations and guidelines were essentially based on expert consensus. The common indications for sedation are otherwise intractable delirium, dyspnea, and pain, in patients with a life expectancy of no more than two weeks. Existential distress is a controversial indication. The drug of first choice is midazolam. As the sedating effect of opioids is hard to predict, they should not be used as sedatives. The risks of sedation include respiratory and circulatory depression, as well as the loss of communicative ability, control, and autonomy. It is generally recommended that the patient's symptom burden and depth of sedation should be monitored; clinical and technically supported monitoring are recommended in some publications as well, depending on the situation. CONCLUSION: There is a broad consensus in favor of sedation to relieve suffering in the last days and hours of life. Recommendations vary for patients with a longer life expectancy and for those with existential distress, and with respect to monitoring.

"It's pretty much flying blind in the home care setting": A qualitative study on the influence of home care specific circumstances on sedation in specialist palliative home care.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on sedation at the end of life indicate challenges in the home care setting, leading to deviations from guidelines or non-provision of sedation. AIM: As part of the "SedPall" study, we aimed to explore circumstances in specialist palliative home care, which influence the practice of sedation. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 59) and two focus groups (n = 4, n = 5). Recruitment took place via contact persons. We thematically analyzed the transcripts with the Framework Approach, using MAXQDA 2018.2. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses, and other members of the multiprofessional team from 10 palliative care units and seven home care teams. RESULTS: Participants reported home care specific circumstances that can be categorized into three interrelated topics. (1) Lack of 24/7 on-site availability, (2) active involvement of the family, (3) challenges regarding teamwork and multidisciplinarity. Participants drew different conclusions from the reported circumstances regarding the feasibility of different types of sedation at home: While some reported to generally use all types of sedation, others stated that some types of sedation are not feasible in home care, for example deep sedation until death. Most participants questioned the applicability of existing sedation guidelines in the home care setting. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that sedation practices might currently follow the healthcare professional's attitude or service policy rather than the patient's need. To avoid hospital admission in manageable cases and ensure that home care specific best practice standards are met, existing guideline recommendations have to be adapted and supplemented by additional supporting measures specific for the home care setting.

Development of a screening tool for the need of specialist palliative care in oncologic inpatients: study protocol for the ScreeningPALL Study.

INTRODUCTION: A range of referral criteria and scores have been developed in recent years to help with screening for the need of specialist palliative care (SPC) in advanced, incurable cancer patients. However, referral criteria have not yet been widely implemented in oncology, as they usually need to be revised by physicians or nurses with limited time resources. To develop an easily applicable screening for the need for SPC in incurable cancer inpatients, we aim to (a) test inter-rater reliability of multiprofessional expert opinion as reference standard for SPC need (phase I) and (b) explore the diagnostic validity of selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and routine data for the need of SPC (phase II). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria for patients are metastatic or locally advanced, incurable cancer, ≥18 years of age and informed consent by patient or proxy. (Exclusion criteria: malignant haematological disease as main diagnosis). In phase I, three palliative care consultation teams (PCTs) of three German university hospitals assess the SPC need of 20 patient cases. Fleiss' Kappa will be calculated for inter-rater reliability. In phase II, 208 patients are consecutively recruited in four inpatient oncology wards of Freiburg University Hospital. The PCT will provide assessment of SPC need. As potential referral criteria, patients complete PROMs and a selection of routine data on person, disease and treatment is documented. Logistic regression models and ROC analyses are employed to test their utility in screening for SPC need. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings and congresses. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany (approval no. 20-1103). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered on 17 December 2020.

Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS. SETTINGS: Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study. PARTICIPANTS: Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS. RESULTS: There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS. CONCLUSION: Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

Intentional Sedation as a Means to Ease Suffering: A Systematically Constructed Terminology for Sedation in Palliative Care.

Background: Terminology concerning sedation in palliative care is heterogeneous, vague, and difficult to apply with negative impact on the reliability of quantitative data, practice, and ethical discourse. Design: To clarify the concept, we systematically developed definitions of core terms in an interdisciplinary research group comprising palliative care, ethics, law, and philosophy, integrating feedback from external experts. Results: We define terms stepwise, separating matters of terminology (What is the practice?) from matters of good practice (How to use it?). We start with an operational definition of "reduced level of consciousness" (score < 0 on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients (RASS-PAL), followed by defining "sedating," "sedation," and "intentional sedation" as the result or process of sedating a patient as a means of achieving a previously defined treatment goal and the terms "light," "deep," "temporary," and "sedation until death." Conclusion: The terminology facilitates the precise phrasing of aims, indications, and rules for good practice. Empirical research on acceptance and feasibility is needed.

Physicians' Opinion and Practice With the Continuous Use of Sedatives in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: There are few international studies about the continuous use of sedatives (CUS) in the last days of life. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the experiences and opinions regarding CUS of physicians caring for terminally ill patients in seven countries. METHODS: Questionnaire study about practices and experiences with CUS in the last days of life among physicians caring for terminally ill patients in Belgium (n = 175), Germany (n = 546), Italy (n = 214), Japan (n = 513), the Netherlands (n = 829), United Kingdom (n = 114) and Singapore (n = 21). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22%. Of the respondents, 88-99% reported that they had clinical experience of CUS in the last 12 months. More than 90% of respondents indicated that they mostly used midazolam for sedation. The use of sedatives to relieve suffering in the last days of life was considered acceptable in cases of physical suffering (87%-99%). This percentage was lower but still substantial in cases of psycho-existential suffering in the absence of physical symptoms (45%-88%). These percentages were lower when the prognosis was at least several weeks (22%-66% for physical suffering and 5%-42% for psycho-existential suffering). Of the respondents, 10% or less agreed with the statement that CUS is unnecessary because suffering can be alleviated with other measures. A substantial proportion (41%-95%) agreed with the statement that a competent patient with severe suffering has the right to demand the use of sedatives in the last days of life. CONCLUSION: Many respondents in our study considered CUS acceptable for the relief of physical and psycho-existential suffering in the last days of life. The acceptability was lower regarding CUS for psycho-existential suffering and regarding CUS for patients with a longer life expectancy.

An Open Resource for Non-human Primate Optogenetics.

Optogenetics has revolutionized neuroscience in small laboratory animals, but its effect on animal models more closely related to humans, such as non-human primates (NHPs), has been mixed. To make evidence-based decisions in primate optogenetics, the scientific community would benefit from a centralized database listing all attempts, successful and unsuccessful, of using optogenetics in the primate brain. We contacted members of the community to ask for their contributions to an open science initiative. As of this writing, 45 laboratories around the world contributed more than 1,000 injection experiments, including precise details regarding their methods and outcomes. Of those entries, more than half had not been published. The resource is free for everyone to consult and contribute to on the Open Science Framework website. Here we review some of the insights from this initial release of the database and discuss methodological considerations to improve the success of optogenetic experiments in NHPs.

[Clinical pharmacists in palliative care: effects on drug therapy and drug expenses]. / Apotheker auf der Palliativstation: Auswirkung auf Arzneimitteltherapie und Therapiekosten.

BACKGROUND: The effect of integrating clinical pharmacists in German palliative care units with regard to the quality of drug therapy and drug costs has yet not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This work aims to assess the number of pharmaceutical interventions (PI) and the cost-benefit ratio of a clinical pharmacist taking part in the interprofessional patient care team on an inpatient palliative care unit in Germany. METHODS: The number of and underlying reasons for the pharmacist-led recommendations were recorded and analyzed over a 1-year period. In addition, the respective drugs and the acceptance rate of recommendations were assessed. To evaluate the cost-benefit ratio, the financial savings in the provision of drugs were recorded and compared with the expenses for the clinical pharmacy service. RESULTS: A total of 245 PI were performed. Most frequently, the pharmacist advised physicians on drug choices and drug dosages. The acceptance rate was 93%. The cost savings in the provision of drugs covered 83% of the expenses for the clinical pharmacy service. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the integration of a clinical pharmacist is well suited to optimizing the interprofessional treatment of distressing symptoms with a beneficial economic outcome in palliative care. Consequently, the permanent integration of a clinical pharmacist on an inpatient palliative care unit seems to be beneficial and advisable.

Identifying the need for specialized palliative care in adult cancer patients - development and validation of a screening procedure based on proxy assessment by physicians and filter questions.

BACKGROUND: One challenge in caring for cancer patients with incurable disease is the adequate identification of those in need for specialized palliative care (SPC). The study's aim was to validate an easy to use phenomenological screening tool. METHODS: The German tool is based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Palliative Care guidelines and contains ten items in five domains that focus e.g. on diagnosis, functional status, complications, comorbidities, and palliative care relevant problems such as symptom management, distress, and support of family and team members. Sum score ranges from 0 to 14 (no need to great need). Assessment to identify SPC needs was done in university hospital wards between 1 and 08/2017 by health care professionals on admission of the patient if the disease was incurable and expected prognosis < 12 months. The Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS, staff version), an outcome assessment instrument for palliative care that consists of ten items, served as external criterion; in sub samples inter-rater/test-retest were performed. RESULTS: Data from 208 patients with incurable disease and life expectancy < 12 months (54.8% female; average age 63.5 years, range 21-96) were assessed using the tool. The tool has good convergent validity; the correlation between the sum scores of IPOS and our tool showed a significant and substantial effect. The sum score was independent of the patient's age, gender and primary diagnosis. Patients who already were in contact with SPC had significantly higher screening scores than patients without. With a cut point of ≥ 5, 80.8% of the screened patients were in need for SPC. Cronbach's alpha was α = .600. Rater agreement (inter-rater, test-retest) varied between single items. Correlation coefficients showed significant substantial effects. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first validation of a screening procedure in German language identifying SPC needs of adult patients with advanced cancer and the first using filter questions as a pre-screening. Proxy assessment of SPC needs by physicians in cancer care settings is feasible and the suggested tool presents a valid instrument to trigger a PC consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was not registered.

Palliative sedation in Germany: factors and treatment practices associated with different sedation rate estimates in palliative and hospice care services.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice of Palliative Sedation (PS) varies between institutions worldwide and sometimes includes problematic practices. Little available research points at different definitions and frameworks which may contribute to uncertainty of healthcare professionals in the application of PS. This analysis investigates what demographic factors and characteristics of treatment practices differ between institutions with high versus low sedation rates estimates in Palliative and Hospice Care in Germany. METHODS: Data sets from 221 organisations from a prior online survey were separated into two sub-groups divided by their estimated sedation rate A) lower/equal to 16% (n = 187; 90.8%) and B) higher than 16% (n = 19; 9.2%) for secondary analysis. Demographic factors and characteristics of PS treatment practices between the two groups were compared using T-Tests and Chi2/ Fisher Exact Tests and considered significant (*) at two-sided p < .05. RESULTS: Organisations in group B report that they discuss PS for a higher proportion of patients (38.5%/10.2%, p < 0.000**), rate agitation more often as an indications for PS (78.9%/ 53.5%, p = 0.050*), and are more likely to use Lorazepam (63.2%/ 37.4%, p = 0.047*), Promethazin (26.3%/ 9.6%, p = 0.044*), and (Es-)Ketamin (31.6%/ 12.8%, p = 0.039*) than representatives in group A. Both groups differ significantly in their allocation of three case scenarios to different types of PS. CONCLUSIONS: Both definitions and patterns of clinical practice between palliative and hospice care representatives show divergence, which may be influenced one by another. A comprehensive framework considering conceptual, clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of different definitions of PS could help to better distinguish between different types and nuances of PS.

Patients in palliative care-Development of a predictive model for anxiety using routine data.

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety is one of the most common psychological symptoms in patients in a palliative care situation. This study aims to develop a predictive model for anxiety using data from the standard documentation routine. METHODS: Data sets of palliative care patients collected by the German quality management benchmarking system called Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) from 2007 to 2011 were randomly divided into a training set containing two-thirds of the data and a test set with the remaining one-third. We dichotomized anxiety levels, proxy rated by medical staff using the validated HOPE Symptom and Problem Checklist, into two groups with no or mild anxiety versus moderate or severe anxiety. Using the training set, a multivariable logistic regression model was developed by backward stepwise selection. Predictive accuracy was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) based on the test set. RESULTS: An analysis of 9924 data sets suggests a predictive model for anxiety in patients receiving palliative care which contains gender, age, ECOG, living situation, pain, nausea, dyspnea, loss of appetite, tiredness, need for assistance with activities of daily living, problems with organization of care, medication with sedatives/anxiolytics, antidepressants, antihypertensive drugs, laxatives, and antibiotics. It results in a fair predictive value (AUC = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected data providing individual-, disease- and therapy-related information contain valuable information that is useful for the prediction of anxiety risks in patients receiving palliative care. These findings could thus be advantageous for providing appropriate support for patients in palliative care settings and should receive special attention in future research.

[Current legal and jurisdictional questions from the perspective of the German Federal Association for Geriatrics : Practical report]. / Aktuelle rechtliche und rechtspolitische Fragestellungen aus Sicht des Bundesverbands Geriatrie : Praxisbericht.

The article discusses the questions of the arbitration bodies according to § 111b SGB V (Volume V of the Social Insurance Code) in the individual federal states from the perspective of geriatric rehabilitation hospitals. The content of the agreement of reimbursement between a rehabilitation hospital and health insurance will be targeted as well as the question whether the entire content of the agreements of reimbursement can be negotiated at the arbitration body. In addition, the authors describe the consequences of the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court on § 301 I. S. 1 no. 8 SGB V and the reaction of the lawgiver. Furthermore the authors describe the effects of the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court regarding the minimum age associated with complex geriatric treatment (OPS 8-550).

Cell-Targeted Optogenetics and Electrical Microstimulation Reveal the Primate Koniocellular Projection to Supra-granular Visual Cortex.

Electrical microstimulation and more recently optogenetics are widely used to map large-scale brain circuits. However, the neuronal specificity achieved with both methods is not well understood. Here we compare cell-targeted optogenetics and electrical microstimulation in the macaque monkey brain to functionally map the koniocellular lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) projection to primary visual cortex (V1). Selective activation of the LGN konio neurons with CamK-specific optogenetics caused selective electrical current inflow in the supra-granular layers of V1. Electrical microstimulation targeted at LGN konio layers revealed the same supra-granular V1 activation pattern as the one elicited by optogenetics. Taken together, these findings establish a selective koniocellular LGN influence on V1 supra-granular layers, and they indicate comparable capacities of both stimulation methods to isolate thalamo-cortical circuits in the primate brain.

In-service documentation tools and statements on palliative sedation in Germany--do they meet the EAPC framework recommendations? A qualitative document analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous (inter-)national guidelines and frameworks have been developed to provide recommendations for the application of palliative sedation (PS). However, they are still not widely known, and large variations in PS clinical practice can be found. AIM: This study aims to collect and describe contents from documents used in clinical practice and to compare to what extent they match the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework recommendations. DESIGN AND METHODS: In a national survey on PS in Germany 2012, participants were asked to upload their in-service templates, assessment tools, specific protocols, and in-service statements for the application and documentation of PS. These documents are analyzed by using systematic structured content analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred seven content units of 52 provided documents were coded. The analyzed templates are very heterogeneous and also contain items not mentioned in the EAPC framework. Among 11 scales for the evaluation of sedation level, the Ramsey Sedation Score (n = 5) and the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (n = 2) were found most often. For symptom assessment, three different scales were provided one time respectively. In all six PS statements, the common core elements were possible indications for PS, instructions on dose titration, patient monitoring, and care. Wide congruency exists for physical and psychological indications. Most documents coincide on midazolam as a preferred drug and basic monitoring in regular intervals. Aspects such as pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation, informational needs of relatives, and care for the medical professionals are mentioned rarely. CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed templates do neglect some points of the EAPC recommendations. However, they expand the ten-point scheme of the framework in some details. The findings may facilitate the development of standardized consensus documentation and monitoring draft as an operational statement.