Unbearability of suffering at the end of life: the development of a new measuring device, the SOS-V

AbstractBackgroundUnbearable suffering is an important issue in end-of-life decisions. However, there has been no systematic, prospective, patient-oriented research which has focused on unbearable suffering, nor is there a suitable measurement instrument. This article describes the methodological development of a quantitative instrument to measure the nature and intensity of unbearable suffering, practical aspects of its use in end-stage cancer patients in general practice, and studies content validity and psychometric properties.MethodsRecognizing the conceptual difference between unbearability of suffering and extent or intensity of suffering, we developed an instrument. The compilation of aspects considered to be of importance was based on a literature search. Psychometric properties were determined on results of the first interviews with 64 end-stage cancer patients that participated in a longitudinal study in the Netherlands.ResultsThe instrument measures five domains: medical signs and symptoms, loss of function, personal aspects, aspects of environment, and nature and prognosis of the disease. Sixty nine aspects were investigated, and an overall score was asked. In 64 end-stage cancer patients the instrument was used in total 153 times with an average interview time varying from 20-40 minutes. Cronbachs alpha's of the subscales were in majority above 0.7. The sum scores of (sub)scales were correlated strongly to overall measures on suffering.ConclusionThe SOS-V is an instrument for measuring the unbearability of suffering in end-stage cancer patients with good content validity and psychometric properties, which is feasible to be used in practice. This structured instrument makes it possible to identify and study unbearable suffering in a quantitative and patient-oriented way

Physicians' experiences with end-of-life decision-making: Survey in 6 European countries and Australia

Background: In this study we investigated (a) to what extent physicians have experience with performing a range of end-of-life decisions (ELDs), (b) if they have no experience with performing an ELD, would they be willing to do so under certain conditions and (c) which background characteristics are associated with having experience with/or being willing to make such ELDs. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 16,486 physicians from specialities in which death is common: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Results: The response rate differed between countries (39–68%). The experience of foregoing life-sustaining treatment ranged between 37% and 86%: intensifying the alleviation of pain or other symptoms while taking into account possible hastening of death between 57% and 95%, and experience with deep sedation until death between 12% and 46%. Receiving a request for hastening death differed between 34% and 71%, and intentionally hastening death on the explicit request of a patient between 1% and 56%. Conclusion: There are differences between countries in experiences with ELDs, in willingness to perform ELDs and in receiving requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Foregoing treatment and intensifying alleviation of pain and symptoms are practiced and accepted by most physicians in all countries. Physicians with training in palliative care are more inclined to perform ELDs, as are those who attend to higher numbers of terminal patients. Thus, this seems not to be only a matter of opportunity, but also a matter of attitude

Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?

Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. No slippery slope seems to have occurred. Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts. In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life

Attitudes and behaviors of Japanese physicians concerning withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for end-of-life patients: results from an Internet survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence concerning how Japanese physicians think and behave in specific clinical situations that involve withholding or withdrawal of medical interventions for end-of-life or frail elderly patients is yet insufficient.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To analyze decisions and actions concerning the withholding/withdrawal of life-support care by Japanese physicians, we conducted cross-sectional web-based internet survey presenting three scenarios involving an elderly comatose patient following a severe stroke. Volunteer physicians were recruited for the survey through mailing lists and medical journals. The respondents answered questions concerning attitudes and behaviors regarding decision-making for the withholding/withdrawal of life-support care, namely, the initiation/withdrawal of tube feeding and respirator attachment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 304 responses analyzed, a majority felt that tube feeding should be initiated in these scenarios. Only 18% felt that a respirator should be attached when the patient had severe pneumonia and respiratory failure. Over half the respondents felt that tube feeding should not be withdrawn when the coma extended beyond 6 months. Only 11% responded that they actually withdrew tube feeding. Half the respondents perceived tube feeding in such a patient as a "life-sustaining treatment," whereas the other half disagreed. Physicians seeking clinical ethics consultation supported the withdrawal of tube feeding (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.5–16.3; P < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physicians tend to harbor greater negative attitudes toward the withdrawal of life-support care than its withholding. On the other hand, they favor withholding invasive life-sustaining treatments such as the attachment of a respirator over less invasive and long-term treatments such as tube feeding. Discrepancies were demonstrated between attitudes and actual behaviors. Physicians may need systematic support for appropriate decision-making for end-of-life care.</p

Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions: a mortality follow-back study in Belgium

BACKGROUND: This study compares prevalence and types of medical end-of-life decisions between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities of Belgium. This is the first nationwide study that can make these comparisons and the first measurement after implementation of the euthanasia law (2002). METHODS: We performed a mortality follow-back study in 2005-2006. Data were collected via the nationwide Sentinel Network of General Practitioners, an epidemiological surveillance system representative of all Belgian GPs.Weekly, all GPs reported the medical end-of-life decisions among all non-sudden deaths of patients in their practice. We compared the northern Dutch-speaking (60%) and southern French-speaking communities (40%) controlling for population differences. RESULTS: We analysed 1690 non-sudden deaths. An end-of-life decision with possible life-shortening effect was made in 50% of patients in the Dutch-speaking community and 41% of patients in the French-speaking community (OR 1.4; 95%CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Continuous deep sedation until death occurred in 8% and 15% respectively (OR 0.5; 95%CI, 0.4 to 0.7). Community differences regarding the prevalence of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide were not significant.Community differences were more present among home/care home than among hospital deaths: non-treatment decisions with explicit life-shortening intention were made more often in the Dutch-speaking than in the French-speaking community settings (OR 2.2; 95%CI, 1.2 to 3.9); while continuous deep sedation occurred less often in the Dutch-speaking community settings (OR 0.5; 95%CI, 0.3 to 0.9). CONCLUSION: Even though legal and general healthcare systems are the same for the whole country, there are considerable variations between the communities in type and prevalence of certain end-of-life decisions, even after controlling for population difference

Care staff's self-efficacy regarding end-of-life communication in the long-term care setting:Results of the PACE cross-sectional study in six European countries

Background: An important part of palliative care is discussing preferences at end of life, however such conversations may not often occur. Care staff with greater self-efficacy towards end-of-life communication are probably more likely to have such discussions, however, there is a lack of research on self-efficacy towards end-of-life discussions among long-term care staff in Europe and related factors. Objectives: Firstly, to describe and compare the self-efficacy level of long-term care staff regarding end-of-life communication across six countries; secondly, to analyse characteristics of staff and facilities which are associated to self-efficacy towards end-of-life communication. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Settings: Long-term care facilities in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland (n = 290). Participants: Nurses and care assistants (n = 1680) completed a self-efficacy scale and were included in the analyses. Methods: Care staff rated their self-efficacy (confidence in their own ability) on a scale of 0 (cannot do at all) to 7 -(certain can do) of the 8-item communication subscale of the Self-efficacy in End-of-Life Care survey. Staff characteristics included age, gender, professional role, education level, training in palliative care and years working in direct care. Facility characteristics included facility type and availability of palliative care guidelines, palliative care team and palliative care advice. Analyses were conducted using Generalized Estimating Equations, to account for clustering of data at facility level. Results: Thde proportion of staff with a mean self-efficacy score >5 was highest in the Netherlands (76.4%), ranged between 55.9% and 60.0% in Belgium, Poland, England and Finland and was lowest in Italy (29.6%). Higher levels of self-efficacy (>5) were associated with: staff over 50 years of age (OR 1.86 95% CI[1.30–2.65]); nurses (compared to care assistants) (1.75 [1.20–2.54]); completion of higher secondary or tertiary education (respectively 2.22 [1.53–3.21] and 3.11 [2.05–4.71]; formal palliative care training (1.71 [1.32–2.21]); working in direct care for over 10 years (1.53 [1.14–2.05]); working in a facility with care provided by onsite nurses and care assistants and offsite physicians (1.86 [1.30–2.65]); and working in a facility where guidelines for palliative care were available (1.39 [1.03–1.88]). Conclusion: Self-efficacy towards end-of-life communication was most often low in Italy and most often high in the Netherlands. In all countries, low self-efficacy was found relatively often for discussion of prognosis. Palliative care education and guidelines for palliative care could improve the self-efficacy of care staff