Comparison of continuous temperature measurement methods in the intensive care unit: standard bladder catheter measurements versus non-invasive transcutaneous sensors.

The purpose of this study was to compare a wearable system for body core temperature measurement versus bladder and tympanic thermometers in an intensive care setting. The question was, if continuous non-invasive sensors in the intensive care unit represent an alternative to current standard methods of invasive continuous bladder temperature measurement methods?Between May and September 2023, a comparative investigation involving 112 patients was conducted in a 20-bed surgical intensive care unit to assess various temperature probes, including those placed in the tympanic tube, bladder, and skin. To achieve this, a wireless non-invasive sensor system provided by greenTEG AG, Switzerland, was affixed to different body locations (clavicular and lateral chest) of each catheterized patient (equipped with a temperature probe) admitted to the intensive care unit. Furthermore, tympanic temperatures were recorded at specified intervals. The measurement duration ranged from a minimum of six hours to a maximum of six days, resulting in the analysis of a total of 355 simultaneous temperature measurements.In this study, a wearable temperature measurement system attached to two different body sites revealed a consistent negative bias compared to bladder temperature. In addition, the measurements were particularly influenced by body constitution. The tested system in all patients showed a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.45 °C for the lateral chest and 0.50 °C for the clavicular position. Tympanic measurements had a mean absolute error of 0.35 °C. In patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 the MAE increased to 0.5 °C for the lateral chest and 0.56 °C for the clavicular position. In contrast, the tympanic measurement had a reduced MAE of 0.32 °C, which is well below this threshold when compared to bladder measurements.In conclusion the investigated system did not meet the clinically relevant acceptance criteria and showed low precision in correctly identifying fever episodes compared to invasive temperature probes, however its main advantage lies in its continuity and non-invasiveness. This makes it a potential alternative to intermittent tympanic measurement devices. In this study we were able to show, that in at least one subset of patients, the non-invasive and continuous device demonstrated a precision comparable to tympanic measurements.The accuracy of all non-invasive methods was lower than in previous studies, suggesting that the use of bladder temperature as reference and user related variations may have introduced additional errors.

"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.

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.

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).

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.

[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.

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.

[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).

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.

Care trajectories and survival after discharge from specialized inpatient palliative care--results from an observational follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the patients' individual care trajectories after discharge or transfer from inpatient palliative care units (PCU) to other care settings. This study aims to survey the further care trajectory and overall survival from the time of discharge of patients in a palliative care situation. Patient groups from either the PCU or the palliative care mobile support team (PCMT) are compared in order to analyze the demographic data, discharge settings, frequency of changes of care settings, overall survival from the time of discharge and place of death. METHODS: In a mono-centre prospective observational study, patients discharged or transferred from a German inpatient PCU or from other hospital wards with support of the PCMT were invited to participate in this study. After discharge, the central care provider, such as inpatient hospices, nursing homes or general practitioners, was asked for information on the care trajectory and on readmissions to hospital in four weekly follow-up phone calls until the patients' death. Place of death and overall survival from the time of discharge were noted. RESULTS: During the study period, 467 inpatients from the PCU and 554 inpatients from the PCMT were treated. Ultimately, 418 were discharged. Two hundred forty-five patients agreed to participate in the study, and the majority of them were either discharged home (60.8 %), to inpatient hospices (20.0 %) or to nursing homes (11.0 %). More than half of all of them (55.9 %) stayed continuously in their discharge setting. The remaining 44.1 % experienced a mean number of 3.1 ± 4.1 changes of care setting. Most frequently, patients changed their care setting from private home to hospital (N = 110; 32.4 %) and from hospital back to private home (N = 82; 24.4 %). Patients' mean overall survival from the time of discharge was 51.7 days (median 24.0 days, range 1-488 days). Most patients died in their private home (35.9 %), inpatient hospices (23.3 %) or inpatient PCUs (22.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: The results show a high percentage of stable care trajectories at the end of life with few or no changes of care setting. To achieve this, well-considered discharge planning and an adequately chosen network of care providers are necessary.

Stimulus-specific adaptation in field potentials and neuronal responses to frequency-modulated tones in the primary auditory cortex.

In order to structure the sensory environment our brain needs to detect changes in the surrounding that might indicate events of presumed behavioral relevance. A characteristic brain response presumably related to the detection of such novel stimuli is termed mismatch negativity (MMN) observable in human scalp recordings. A candidate mechanism underlying MMN at the neuronal level is stimulus-specific adaptation (SSA) which has several characteristics in common. SSA is the specific decrease in the response to a frequent stimulus, which does not generalize to an interleaved rare stimulus in a sequence of events. SSA was so far mainly described for changes in the response to simple pure tone stimuli differing in tone frequency. In this study we provide data from the awake rat auditory cortex on adaptation in the responses to frequency-modulated tones (FM) with the deviating feature being the direction of FM modulation. Adaptation of cortical neurons to the direction of FM modulation was stronger for slow modulation than for faster modulation. In contrast to pure tone SSA which showed no stimulus preference, FM adaptation in neuronal data differed sometimes between upward and downward FM. This, however, was not the case in the local field potential data recorded simultaneously. Our findings support the role of the auditory cortex as the source for change-related activity induced by FM stimuli by showing that dynamic stimulus features such as FM modulation can evoke SSA in the rat in a way very similar to FM-induced MMN in the human auditory cortex.

The EAPC framework on palliative sedation and clinical practice--a questionnaire-based survey in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation (PS) can be offered to patients with intolerable symptom burden refractory to comprehensive palliative care (PC) treatment. Little is known about the daily practice of using PS in German specialized PC institutions in the context of existing national and international recommendations. PURPOSE: This study's primary objective is to explore how PS is used in German specialized PC institutions with reference to the EAPC framework. METHODS: The heads of all palliative care units, hospices, specialized palliative home care teams, and specialized pediatric palliative home care teams listed in the official address registers were invited to take part in a questionnaire survey about the clinical practice of PS in their institution. RESULTS: Considerable differences of the frequency of PS exist between institutions. The estimated frequency of PS ranges from 0 to 80 % of all patients treated per year (mean 6.7 %). Some PC specialists report to discuss PS as treatment option for every patient they encounter. Specific evaluation and documentation tools are rare. Of the study participants, 36.2 % are not familiar with international and national recommendations. CONCLUSION: Many differences exist in frequency and clinical handling of PS in Germany. Implementation of international and national recommendations into clinical practice remains inconsistent.

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.

Palliative care needs, symptoms, and treatment intensity along the disease trajectory in medical oncology outpatients: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Early integration of palliative care into cancer disease management is beneficial for patients with advanced tumors. However, little is known about the association of palliative care interventions with symptom burden and treatment aggressiveness at the end of life (EoL). METHODS: To assess determinants of symptom burden and treatment intensity at the EoL, a retrospective chart review was conducted in university cancer clinic outpatients who died between July 2009 and June 2011. The objective was the correlation of place of death, palliative care utilization, prior EoL discussion, and social background (determinant variables) with symptom burden and treatment intensity (outcome variables). RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (61 men and 35 women) died; the mean age at death was 62.4 years (range 24-83). Mean duration of treatment was 17.9 months (range 1-129). Data on the last 14 days (3) of life were available for 62 (44) patients. Forty-seven patients received aggressive EoL care which was strongly associated with hospital death (p = 0.000, χ2 test). The 15 patients having used palliative care services or dying in a palliative care unit (PCU) had fewer symptoms (p = 0.006, t test) and interventions (p = 0.000, t test) at the EoL. Having addressed EoL issues was correlated with fewer procedures during the last 3 days (p = 0.035, t test). CONCLUSIONS: Most cancer patients receive aggressive EoL care interfering with quality of life. Despite limitations by small sample size and missing data, the results suggest that palliative care utilization is associated with reduced symptom burden and intensity of treatment at the EoL. Timely discussion of EoL issues may reduce the number of unnecessary interventions and facilitate referral to the PCU.

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.

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.

Practicability, safety, and efficacy of a "German model" for opioid conversion to oral levo-methadone.

INTRODUCTION: An algorithm to convert from any other opioid to oral levo-methadone was developed in Germany, the German model of levo-methadone conversion (GMLC). According to this GMLC, the pre-existing opioid is stopped, then titration of oral levo-methadone is initiated with a starting dose of 5 mg orally q 4 h (plus prn q 1 h). If necessary, levo-methadone dose is increased (pain) or decreased (side effects) by 30% q 4 h (plus prn q 1 h). After 72 h, the achieved single dose is maintained, but the dosing interval increases twofold to q 8 h (plus prn q 3 h). The aim of this study was to obtain information about the practicability, safety, and efficacy of the GMLC in clinical routine. METHODS: A retrospective, systematic chart review of levo-methadone conversions for the treatment of pain in inpatient palliative care was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were analyzed. The dosing interval was increased correctly after 72 h as demanded by the GMLC in 60% of patients. In 85% of the patients, opioid medication with levo-methadone could be maintained until the end of the inpatient stay. In three patients (6%), levo-methadone administration had to be stopped due to side effects. No serious adverse events could be detected during opioid rotation. Pain intensity was reduced significantly (p < 0.001) after conversion concerning mean (NRS 0.9; range 0-4) and maximum pain over the day (NRS 3.9; range 0-10). CONCLUSION: The presented study indicates that the GMLC provides a practical and reasonably safe approach to perform opioid rotation to levo-methadone in a palliative care setting.

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.

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.