Palliative sedation (PS) consists of the use of drugs to alleviate the suffering of patients with refractory symptoms, through a reduction in consciousness. The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of and indications for PS in patients treated by pediatric palliative care teams (PPCT), and the relationship between PS, the place of death, and the characteristics of the care teams.

Ambispective study with the participation of 14 PPCT working in Spain.

From January to December 2019, a total of 164 patients attended by these PPCT died. Of these, 83 (50.6%) received PS during their last 24 hours. The most frequent refractory symptoms were terminal suffering (n = 40, 48.2%), dyspnea (n = 9, 10.8%), pain (n = 8, 9.6%), and convulsive state (n = 7, 8.4%). Sedation in the last 24 hours of life was more likely if the patient died in hospital, rather than at home (62.9% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.01); if the parents had not expressed their preference regarding the place of death (69.2% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.009); and if the PPCT had less than 5 years’ experience (66.7% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.018).

PS is a real possibility in pediatric end-of-life care and relates to care planning and team expertise.

Palliative sedation (PS) and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) are options for end-of-life (EOL) care in Canada, since the latter was legalized in 2016. Little research to date has explored the potential impact of MAiD on PS practices. This study investigated physicians’ perceptions of their practices surrounding PS and how they may have changed since 2016.

A survey (n=37) and semi-structured interviews (n=23) were conducted with palliative care providers throughout Ontario. Questions focused on PS practices and explored potential changes following the implementation of MAiD. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by 2 independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated via reflexive thematic analysis.

Thematic analysis yielded the following themes: (1) Increased patient/family knowledge of EOL care; (2) More frequent/fulsome discussions; (3) Normalization/repositioning of PS; and (4) Conflation and differentiation of PS/MAiD. Across these themes, participants espoused increased patient, family, and provider comfort with PS, which may stem equally from the advent of MAiD and the growth of palliative care in general. Participants also emphasized that, following MAiD, PS is viewed as a less radical intervention.

This is the first study to investigate physicians’ perspectives on the impact of MAiD on PS. Participants strongly opposed treating MAiD and PS as direct equivalents, given the differences in intent and eligibility. Participants stressed that MAiD requests/inquiries should prompt individualized assessments exploring all avenues of symptom management – the results of which may or may not include PS.

This study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the content and process of decision-making about palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) as perceived by Belgian palliative care physicians.

This Belgian nationwide qualitative study follows a grounded theory approach. We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 palliative care physicians working in 19 Belgian hospital-based palliative care units and 4 stand-alone hospices. We analyzed the data using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven, and we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Guidelines (COREQ).

Analysis of the data identified several criteria that physicians apply in their decision-making about PS-ES, namely, the importance of the patient’s demand, PS-ES as a last resort option after all alternatives have been applied, the condition of unbearable suffering combined with other kinds of suffering, and the condition of being in a terminal stage. Regarding the process of decision-making itself, physicians refer to the need for multidisciplinary perspectives supported by an interpretative dialogue with the patient and all other stakeholders. The decision-making process involves a specific temporality and physicians’ inner conviction about the need of PS-ES.

Belgian palliative care physicians are not sure about the criteria regarding decision-making in PS-ES. To deal with complex existential suffering in end-of-life situations, they stress the importance of participation by all stakeholders (patient, relatives, palliative care team, other physicians, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chaplains, etc.) in the decision-making process to prevent inadequate decisions being made.

Palliative sedation (PS) is an intrusive measure to relieve patients at the end of their life from otherwise untreatable symptoms. Intensive discussion of the advantages and limitations of palliative care with the patients and their relatives should precede the initiation of PS since PS is terminated by the patient’s death in most cases. Drugs for PS are usually administered intravenously. Midazolam is widely used, either alone or in combination with other substances. PS can be conducted in both inpatient and outpatient settings; however, a quality analysis comparing both modalities was missing so far.

This prospective observational study collected data from patients undergoing PS inpatient at the palliative care unit (PCU, n = 26) or outpatient at a hospice (n = 2) or at home (specialized outpatient palliative care [SAPV], n = 31) between July 2017 and June 2018. Demographical data, indications for PS, and drug protocols were analyzed. The depth of sedation according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the degree of satisfaction of staff members and patient’s relatives were included as parameters for quality assessment.

Patients undergoing PS at the PCU were slightly younger compared to outpatients (hospice and SAPV combined). Most patients suffered from malignant diseases, and midazolam was the backbone of sedation for inpatients and outpatients. The median depth of sedation was between +1 and −3 according to the RASS with a trend to deeper sedation prior to death. The median degree of satisfaction was “good,” scored by staff members and by patient’s relatives. Significant differences between inpatients and outpatients were not seen in protocols, depth of sedation, and degree of satisfaction.

The data support the thesis that PS is possible for inpatients and outpatients with comparable results. For choosing the best place for PS, other aspects such as patient’s and relative’s wishes, stress, and medical reasons should be considered.

Palliative sedation is a method of symptom management frequently used in hospices to treat uncontrolled symptoms at the end of life. There is a substantial body of literature on this subject; however, there has been little research into the experiences of hospice nurses when administering palliative sedation in an attempt to manage the terminal restlessness experienced by cancer patients.

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of seven hospice nurses who had cared for at least one patient who had undergone palliative sedation within the past year in a hospice in the south of England in the United Kingdom. A phenomenological approach and Colaizzi's stages of analysis were employed to develop themes from the data.

Facilitating a “peaceful death” was the primary goal of the nurses, where through the administration of palliative sedation they sought to enable and support patients to be “comfortable,” “relaxed,” and “calm” at the terminal stage of their illness. Ethical dilemmas related to decision making were a factor in achieving this. These were: medication decisions, “juggling the drugs,” “causing the death,” sedating young people, the family “requesting” sedation, and believing that hospice is a place where death is hastened.

Hospice nurses in the U.K. frequently encounter ethical and emotional dilemmas when administering palliative sedation. Making such decisions about using palliative sedation causes general discomfort for them. Undertaking this aspect of care requires confidence and competence on the part of nurses, and working within a supportive hospice team is of fundamental importance in supporting this practice.

Our aim was to describe the process of palliative sedation from the point of view of physicians and nurses working in palliative care in Brazil.

Ours was a descriptive study conducted between May and December of 2011, with purposeful snowball sampling of 32 physicians and 29 nurses working in facilities in Brazil that have adopted the practice of palliative care.

The symptoms prioritized for an indication of palliative sedation were dyspnea, delirium, and pain. Some 65.6% of respondents believed that the survival time of a patient in the final phase was not a determining factor for the indication of this measure, and that the patient, family, and healthcare team should participate in the decision-making process. For 42.6% of these professionals, the opinion of the family was the main barrier to an indication of this therapy.

The opinion of the physicians and nurses who participated in this study converged with the principal national and international guidelines on palliative sedation. However, even though it is a therapy that has been adopted in palliative care, it remains a controversial practice.

Palliative sedation is a common treatment in palliative care. The home is a difficult environment for research, and there are few studies about sedation at home. Our aim was to analyze this practice in a home setting.

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study in a home cohort during 2011. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 18 years or older and enrolled in the Palliative Home Care Program (PHCP) with advanced cancer. The variables employed were: sex, age, primary tumor location, and place of death. We also registered indication, type, drug and dose, awareness of diagnosis and prognosis, consent, survival, presence or absence of rales, painful mouth, and ulcers in patients sedated at home. We also collected the opinions of family members and professionals about the suffering of sedated patients.

A total of 446 patients (56% at home) of the 617 admitted to the PHCP between January and December of 2011 passed away. The typical patient in our population was a 70-year-old man with a lung tumor. Some 35 (14%) home patients required sedation, compared to 93 (49%) at the hospital. The most frequent indication was delirium (70%), with midazolam the most common drug (mean dose, 40 mg). Survival was around three days. Rales were frequent (57%) as well as awareness of diagnosis and prognosis (77 and 71%, respectively). Perception of suffering after sedation was rare among relatives (17%) and professionals (8%). In most cases, the decision was made jointly by professionals and family members.

Our study confirmed the role of palliative sedation as an appropriate therapeutic tool in the home environment.

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is a way to reduce conscious experience of symptoms of severe suffering in terminally ill cancer patients. However, there is wide variation in the frequency of its reported. So we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the prevalence and features of CDS in our palliative care unit (PCU).

We performed a systemic retrospective analysis of the medical and nursing records of all 1581 cancer patients who died at the PCU at Higashi Sapporo Hospital between April 2005 and August 2011. Continuous deep sedation can only be administered safely and appropriately when a multidisciplinary team is involved in the decision-making process. Prior to administration of CDS, a multidisciplinary team conference (MDTC) was held with respect to all the patients considered for CDS by an attending physician. The main outcome measures were the frequency and characteristics of CDS (patient background, all target symptoms, medications used for sedation, duration, family's satisfaction, and distress). We mailed anonymous questionnaires to bereaved families in August 2011.

Of 1581 deceased patients, 22 (1.39%) had received CDS. Physical exhaustion 8 (36.4%), dyspnea 7 (31.8%), and pain 5 (22.7%) were the most frequently mentioned indications. Continuous deep sedation had a duration of less than 1 week in 17 (77.3%). Six patients (0.38%) did not meet the appropriate criteria for CDS according to the MDTC and so did not receive it. Although bereaved families were generally comfortable with the practice of CDS, some expressed a high level of emotional distress.

Our results indicate that the prevalence of CDS will be decreased when it is carried out solely for appropriate indications. Continuity of teamwork, good coordination, exchange of information, and communication between the various care providers are essential. A lack of any of these may lead to inadequate assessment, information discrepancies, and unrest.

Palliative sedation is a last resort medical act aimed at relieving intolerable suffering induced by intractable symptoms in patients at the end-of-life. This act is generally accepted as being medically indicated under certain circumstances. A controversy remains in the literature as to its ethical validity. There is a certain vagueness in the literature regarding the legitimacy of palliative sedation in cases of non-physical refractory symptoms, especially “existential suffering.” This pilot study aims to measure the influence of two independent variables (short/long prognosis and physical/existential suffering) on the physicians' attitudes toward palliative sedation (dependent variable).

We used a 2 × 2 experimental design as described by Blondeau et al. Four clinical vignettes were developed (vignette 1: short prognosis/existential suffering; vignette 2: long prognosis/existential suffering; vignette 3: short prognosis/physical suffering; vignette 4: long prognosis/physical suffering). Each vignette presented a terminally ill patient with a summary description of his physical and psychological condition, medication, and family situation. The respondents' attitude towards sedation was assessed with a six-point Likert scale. A total of 240 vignettes were sent to selected Swiss physicians.

74 vignettes were completed (36%). The means scores for attitudes were 2.62 ± 2.06 (v1), 1.88 ± 1.54 (v2), 4.54 ± 1.67 (v3), and 4.75 ± 1.71 (v4). General linear model analyses indicated that only the type of suffering had a significant impact on the attitude towards sedation (F = 33.92, df = 1, p = 0.000).

The French Swiss physicians' attitude toward palliative sedation is more favorable in case of physical suffering than in existential suffering. These results are in line with those found in the study of Blondeau et al. with Canadian physicians and will be discussed in light of the arguments given by physicians to explain their decisions.