Trends in continuous deep sedation until death between 2007 and 2013 : a repeated nationwide survey

Background: Continuous deep sedation until death is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its potential to hasten death and its proper use in end-of-life care. A thorough analysis of important trends in this practice is needed to identify potentially problematic developments. This study aims to examine trends in the prevalence and practice characteristics of continuous deep sedation until death in Flanders, Belgium between 2007 and 2013, and to study variation on physicians’ degree of palliative training. Methods: Population-based death certificate study in 2007 and 2013 in Flanders, Belgium. Reporting physicians received questionnaires about medical practices preceding the patient’s death. Patient characteristics, clinical characteristics (drugs used, duration, artificial nutrition/hydration, intention and consent), and palliative care training of attending physician were recorded. We posed the following question regarding continuous deep sedation: ‘Was the patient continuously and deeply sedated or kept in a coma until death by the use of one or more drugs’. Results: After the initial rise of continuous deep sedation to 14.5% in 2007 (95%CI 13.1%-15.9%), its use decreased to 12.0% in 2013 (95%CI 10.9%-13.2%). Compared with 2007, in 2013 opioids were less often used as sole drug and the decision to use continuous deep sedation was more often preceded by patient request. Compared to non-experts, palliative care experts more often used benzodiazepines and less often opioids, withheld artificial nutrition/hydration more often and performed sedation more often after a request from or with the consent of the patient or family. Conclusion: Worldwide, this study is the first to show a decrease in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation. Despite positive changes in performance and decision-making towards more compliance with due care requirements, there is still room for improvement in the use of recommended drugs and in the involvement of patients and relatives in the decision-making process

The involvement of cancer patients in the four stages of decision-making preceding continuous sedation until death: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Involving patients in decision-making is considered to be particularly appropriate towards the end of life. Professional guidelines emphasize that the decision to initiate continuous sedation should be made in accordance with the wishes of the dying person and be preceded by their consent. AIM: To describe the decision-making process preceding continuous sedation until death with particular attention to the involvement of the person who is dying. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies using interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with 26 physicians, 30 nurses and 24 relatives caring for 24 patients with cancer who received continuous sedation until death in Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. RESULTS: We distinguished four stages of decision-making: initiation, information exchange, deliberation and the decision to start continuous sedation until death. There was wide variation in the role the patient had in the decision-making process. At one end of the spectrum (mostly in the United Kingdom), the physician discussed the possible use of sedation with the patient, but took the decision themselves. At the other end (mostly in Belgium and the Netherlands), the patient initiated the conversation and the physician's role was largely limited to evaluating if and when the medical criteria were met. CONCLUSION: Decision-making about continuous sedation until death goes through four stages and the involvement of the patient in the decision-making varies. Acknowledging the potential sensitivity of raising the issue of end-of-life sedation, we recommend building into clinical practice regular opportunities to discuss the goals and preferences of the person who is dying for their future medical treatment and care

Barriers in the decision making about and performance of continuous sedation until death in nursing homes

Background and Objectives: While decision making about and performance of continuous sedation involve many challenges, they appear to be particularly pervasive in nursing homes. This study aims to identify barriers to the decision making and performance of continuous sedation until death in Flemish nursing homes as experienced by the health care professionals involved. Research Design and Methods: Ten focus groups were held with 71 health care professionals including 16 palliative care physicians, 42 general practitioners, and 13 nursing home staff. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a constant comparative approach. Results: Perceived barriers concerned factors prior to and during sedation and were classified according to three types: (a) personal barriers related to knowledge and skills including the lack of clarity on what continuous sedation should be used for (linguistic ambiguity) and when and how it should be used (practical ambiguity); (b) relational barriers concerning communication and collaboration both between health care professionals and with family; (c) organizational barriers related to the organization of care in nursing homes where, for example, there is no on-site physician, or where the recommended medication is not always available. Discussion and Implications: The findings suggest there are considerable challenges for sound decision making about and performance of continuous sedation until death in nursing homes. There is a need for multicomponent initiatives that provide guidance in the context of the complexity of a resident's medical situation, the family, and the specific organization of care, which would have the potential to facilitate and improve the decision-making process and performance of continuous sedation in nursing homes

Reasons for continuous sedation until death in cancer patients : a qualitative interview study

End-of-life sedation, though increasingly prevalent and widespread, remains a highly debated medical practice in the context of palliative medicine. This qualitative study aims to look more specifically at how health care workers justify their use of continuous sedation until death and which factors they report as playing a part in the decision-making process. In-depth interviews were held with 28 physicians and 22 nurses of 27 cancer patients in Belgium who had received continuous sedation until death in hospitals, palliative care units or at home. Our findings indicate that medical decision-making for continuous sedation is not only based on clinical indications but also related to morally complex issues such as the social context and the personal characteristics and preferences of individual patient and their relatives. The complex role of non-clinical factors in palliative sedation decision-making needs to be further studied to assess which medically or ethically relevant arguments are underlying daily clinical practice. Finally, our findings suggest that in some cases continuous sedation was resorted to as an alternative option at the end of life when euthanasia, a legally regulated option in Belgium, was no longer practically possible

End-of-life decisions in individuals dying with dementia in Belgium

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of end-of-life decisions in individuals dying with dementia in Belgium. DESIGN: Retrospective mail survey. SETTING: Brussels and Flanders, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians certifying a large random sample of deaths (n = 8,627). MEASUREMENTS: End-of-life decision-making in individuals dying with dementia (n = 361) was compared through bivariate and multivariable analyses with decision-making in individuals dying from cancer (n = 1,276) as reference group. RESULTS: Response rate was 54.7%. The intense pain and symptoms of individuals with dementia was alleviated less often than those of individuals with cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 0.50, P < .001), and individuals with dementia were more likely to have life-prolonging treatment withheld or withdrawn (OR = 1.40, P = .048). Five individuals with dementia (1.3%) requested euthanasia but did not receive it; 60 (4.7%) individuals with cancer who requested euthanasia received it, and 48 (3.8%) who requested it did not (OR = 0.04, P = .047). Individuals with dementia rarely had capacity to participate in decision-making, which more often involved their families than in individuals with cancer (OR = 1.99, P = .009). Little prospect of improvement (59.7%), pointless life prolongation (54.5%), poor quality of life (46.2%), and prevention of further suffering (37.6%) were important reasons for end-of-life decisions in individuals with dementia. CONCLUSION: End-of-life decision-making in individuals dying with dementia differs from that in individuals with cancer, more often involving forgoing of life-prolonging treatment and less often involving intensifying pain and symptom treatment. Considerations typically involve the prospects of the individual with dementia as opposed to the severity of their present situation. Optimal processes of advance care planning may address the burdensome decision falling to physicians and family regarding when to allow the individual to die