Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

Report on palliative sedation medication usage: a survey of palliative care experts in Eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania). METHODS: A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data. RESULTS: Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary.

Pain management in German hospices: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain management is a necessary component of palliative care as most patients suffer from pain during the final phase of life. Due to the complex causation of pain in the last phase of life, it is important to utilize methods other than pharmacotherapeutic options in order to achieve adequate pain control. As little is known about treatment of pain in German hospices, a nationwide survey was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All German hospices (259) were contacted by post in June 2020 and asked to participate in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: A total of 148 (57%) German hospices took part in the survey. A broad variety of medication is used in the hospice setting. Metamizole is the most commonly used non-opiod analgesic , hydromorphone the most commonly used opioid, and pregabalin is the most commonly prescribed co-analgesic drug. The pain medication is usually prescribed as an oral slow-release substance. Standardized treatment schemes are rare among the responding hospices. Most of the respondents also use complementary treatment options, such as aroma (oil) therapy or music therapy, in the treatment of pain. Palliative sedation is used by nearly all responding hospices if all other treatment options fail. CONCLUSION: This survey provides an overview of the treatment options for pain management in German hospices. A broad variety of pain medication is used. Compared to international literature, it is debatable whether such a large variety of different types of pain medication is necessary, or whether a reduction in the type of medication available and the use of standardized treatment schemes could benefit everyone involved.

Continuous palliative sedation until death: a qualitative study of palliative care clinicians' experiences.

BACKGROUND: The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation. AIM: This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians' experiences with continuous palliative sedation. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group discussions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted six focus groups with a total of 28 palliative care clinicians (i.e., 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula) from diverse care settings across Canada, where assisted dying has recently been legalized. RESULTS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to consolidate the data into six key themes: responding to suffering; grappling with uncertainty; adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; grounding clinical practice in ethics; combining medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity; and offering an alternative to assisted death. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction with the patient's family, uncertainty about the patient's prognosis, the concurrent practice of assisted dying, and the treatment of existential suffering influence the quality of sedation and indicate a lack of clear palliative care guidelines. Nevertheless, clinicians exhibit a reflective and adaptive capacity that can facilitate good practice.

Expanding the Use of Continuous Sedation Until Death and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

The controversy over the equivalence of continuous sedation until death (CSD) and physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) provides an opportunity to focus on a significant extended use of CSD. This extension, suggested by the equivalence of PAS/E and CSD, is designed to promote additional patient autonomy at the end-of-life. Samuel LiPuma, in his article, "Continuous Sedation Until Death as Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Conceptual Analysis" claims equivalence between CSD and death; his paper is seminal in the equivalency debate. Critics contend that sedation follows proportionality protocols for which LiPuma's thesis does not adequately account. Furthermore, sedation may not eliminate consciousness, and as such LiPuma's contention that CSD is equivalent to neocortical death is suspect. We not only defend the equivalence thesis, but also expand it to include additional moral considerations. First, we explain the equivalence thesis. This is followed by a defense of the thesis against five criticisms. The third section critiques the current use of CSD. Finally, we offer two proposals that, if adopted, would broaden the use of PAS/E and CSD and thereby expand options at the end-of-life.

Cross-cultural comparison of continuous deep sedation for advanced cancer patients in East Asian countries: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Cultural, social, and legal factors have been known to affect physicians' practice of continuous deep sedation. There have been few quantitative studies to compare continuous deep sedation practice in Asian countries. We aimed to describe and compare clinical characteristics of continuous deep sedation in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to participating palliative care units were enrolled from January 2017 to September 2018. We evaluated and compared (i) the prevalence of continuous deep sedation, (ii) the characteristics of sedated and non-sedated groups in each country, and (iii) continuous deep sedation administration patterns among the three countries. RESULTS: A total of 2158 participants were included in our analysis, and 264 received continuous deep sedation. The continuous deep sedation prevalence was 10, 16 and 22% in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively. Delirium was the most frequent target symptom in all countries, along with dyspnoea (in Japan) and psychological symptoms (in Korea). Midazolam was most frequently used in Japan and Taiwan, but not in Korea (P < 0.001). Among the patients receiving continuous deep sedation, the hydration amount on the final day was significantly different, with median volumes of 200, 500 and 0 mL in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively (P < 0.001). In Korea, 33% of the continuous deep sedation administration caused a high degree of physicians' discomfort, but 3% in Japan and 5% in Taiwan (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practices of continuous deep sedation and physicians' discomfort related to continuous deep sedation initiation highly varied across countries. We need to develop optimal decision-making models of continuous deep sedation and hydration during continuous deep sedation in each country.

Ethical considerations in the relief of cancer pain.

The management of pain for patients with cancer and cancer survivors is a critical clinical task that involves a multitude of ethical issues at almost every phase of the cancer experience. This review is divided into three sections: In the first, we address rights and duties in the relief of pain from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health care institutions and organizations, and public policy. This section includes a detailed description of issues and duties in relation to opioid misuse and addiction. In the second section, we discuss the ethical consideration of therapeutic planning. The final section addresses ethical considerations in the management of pain at the end of life including a detailed discussion regarding ethical issues relating to the use of palliative sedation as a clinical intervention of last resort.

Should we all die asleep? The problem of the normalization of palliative sedation.

Palliative sedation is a medical intervention to manage distress in dying patients, by reducing consciousness when symptom-directed therapies fail. Continuous deep sedation is ethically sensitive because it may shorten life and completely prevents communication. But sedation short of this is also common. There has been a steady increase in the use of sedation over recent decades. Sedation may have become a means to die while sleeping, rather than a method of last resort to alleviate suffering. Sedation may be requested or expected by patients, families or staff. The need for sedation may be being interpreted more loosely. The acceptance of a 'tolerable amount of discomfort' may have lost ground to a desire to get the final phase over with quickly. Sedation is not always a bad thing. Medical care is otherwise unable to completely control all distressing symptoms in every patient. Sedation may result from other necessary symptom control drugs. Dying when sedated can be seen by as 'peaceful'. We feel it is necessary, however, to highlight three caveats: the need to manage expectations, the cost in terms of loss of communication, and the grey area between continuous deep sedation and euthanasia. We conclude that there may be good grounds for sedation in palliative care, and in some cases, continuous deep sedation may be used as a last resort. But the criteria of necessary and proportionate drug treatment should remain. The normalisation of sedation into dying while sleeping should be resisted.

Continuous and deep sedation until death after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies in intensive care units: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Continuous and deep sedation until death is a much highly debated end-of-life practice. France is unique in having a regulatory framework for it. However, there are no data on its practice in intensive care units (ICUs). AIM: The aim is to describe continuous and deep sedation in relation to the framework in the specific context of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in ICUs, that is, its decision-making process and its practice compared to other end-of-life practices in this setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: French multicenter observational study. Consecutive ICU patients who died after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies. RESULTS: A total of 343 patients in 57 ICUs, 208 (60%) with continuous and deep sedation. A formalized procedure for continuous and deep sedation was available in 32% of the ICUs. Continuous and deep sedation was not the result of a collegial decision-making process in 17% of cases, and did not involve consultation with an external physician in 29% of cases. The most commonly used sedative medicines were midazolam (10 [5-18] mg h-1) and propofol (200 [120-250] mg h -1). The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was -5 in 60% of cases. Analgesia was associated with sedation in 94% of cases. Compared with other end-of-life sedative practices (n = 98), medicines doses were higher with no difference in the depth of sedation. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a poor compliance with the framework for continuous and deep sedation. It highlights the need to formalize it to improve the decision-making process and the match between the intent, the practice and the actual effect.

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. CONCLUSION: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

Response to "The opinion of French pulmonologists and palliative care physicians on non-invasive ventilation during palliative sedation at end of life: a nationwide survey''.

We have several major concerns about this article [Guastella et al 2021]. Although it states that it is about palliative sedation, it is not. Rather, it is about the French Claeys Leonetti Law about Continuous Deep Sedation (CDS) at the end of life [Loi n°2016-87].

Reply to reaction on 'Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy - case report'.

We would like to respond to the comment we received from our colleagues on our case report about organ donation after euthanasia starting at home. We reply to their statements on medical and legal aspects, and provide more information on our view of informed consent.

Monitoring the clinical practice of palliative sedation (PALSED) in patients with advanced cancer: an international, multicentre, non-experimental prospective observational study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness at the end of life. It can be initiated to relieve a patient's burden caused by refractory symptoms at the end of life. The impact of palliative sedation needs to be clinically monitored to adjust the proper dose and regimen of sedative medication to ensure that patients are at ease and comfortable at the end of their lives. Although there is consensus among health care professionals and within guidelines that efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be closely monitored, there is no agreement about how, when, and by whom, this monitoring should be performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of palliative sedation by measuring the discomfort levels and sedation/agitation levels of the patients at regular timepoints. In addition, the clinical trajectories of those patients receiving palliative sedation will be monitored and recorded. METHODS: The study is an international prospective non-experimental observational multicentre study. Patients are recruited from in-patient palliative care settings in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Adult patients with advanced cancer are monitored by using proxy observations of discomfort (DS-DAT) and depth of sedation/agitation levels (RASS-PAL) during palliative sedation. After the palliative sedation period, the care for the specific participant case is evaluated by one of the attending health care professionals and one relative via a questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first international prospective multicenter study evaluating the clinical practice of palliative sedation including observations of discomfort levels and levels of sedation. It will provide valuable information about the practice of palliative sedation in European countries in terminally ill cancer patients. Results from this study will facilitate the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice on how to improve monitoring and comfort in patients receiving palliative sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life: a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. RESULTS: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19-435/C).

The clinical practice of palliative sedation in patients dying from COVID-19: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical experts experienced challenges in the practice of palliative sedation (PS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid deterioration in patients' situation was observed while the indications for starting PS seemed to differ compared to other terminal patients. It is unclear to which extent clinical trajectories of PS differ for these COVID patients compared to regular clinical practice of PS. OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical practice of PS in patients with COVID versus non-COVID patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from a Dutch tertiary medical centre was performed. Charts of adult patients who died with PS during hospitalisation between March '20 and January '21 were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 73 patients received PS and of those 25 (34%) had a COVID infection. Refractory dyspnoea was reported as primary indication for starting PS in 84% of patients with COVID compared to 33% in the other group (p < 0.001). Median duration of PS was significantly shorter in the COVID group (5.8 vs. 17.1 h, p < 0.01). No differences were found for starting dosages, but median hourly dose of midazolam was higher in the COVID group (4.2 mg/hr vs. 2.4 mg/hr, p < 0.001). Time interval between start PS and first medication adjustments seemed to be shorter in COVID patients (1.5 vs. 2.9 h, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: PS in COVID patients is characterized by rapid clinical deterioration in all phases of the trajectory. What is manifested by earlier dose adjustments and higher hourly doses of midazolam. Timely evaluation of efficacy is recommended in those patients.

Implementation of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (palliative version) on an inpatient palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale - Palliative version (RASS-PAL) tool is a brief observational tool to quantify a patient's level of agitation or sedation. The objective of this study was to implement the RASS-PAL tool on an inpatient palliative care unit and evaluate the implementation process. METHODS: Quality improvement implementation project using a short online RASS-PAL self-learning module and point-of-care tool. Participants were staff working on a 31-bed inpatient palliative care unit who completed the RASS-PAL self-learning module and online evaluation survey. RESULTS: The self-learning module was completed by 49/50 (98%) of regular palliative care unit staff (nurses, physicians, allied health, and other palliative care unit staff). The completion rate of the self-learning module by both regular and casual palliative care unit staff was 63/77 (82%). The follow-up online evaluation survey was completed by 23/50 (46%) of respondents who regularly worked on the palliative care unit. Respondents agreed (14/26; 54%) or strongly agreed (10/26; 38%) that the self-learning module was implemented successfully, with 100% agreement that it was effective for their educational needs. CONCLUSION: Using an online self-learning module is an effective method to engage and educate interprofessional staff on the RASS-PAL tool as part of an implementation strategy.

[Pain management in German specialized outpatient palliative care : A cross-sectional study to present the current pain management of palliative patients in the home environment]. / Schmerztherapie in der deutschen spezialisierten ambulanten Palliativversorgung : Eine Querschnittsstudie zur Darstellung der aktuellen schmerzmedizinischen Versorgung von palliativen Patienten im häuslichen Umfeld.

BACKGROUND: With the help of specialized outpatient palliative care teams (German abbreviation: SAPV), seriously ill and dying patients in Germany can be adequately cared for in their home environment until the end of their lives; however, there are no uniform standards or guidelines for well-executed pain management right now. OBJECTIVE: This approach serves as basic research in the field of public health research. This is intended to present which methods (use of different professional groups, use of pain medications, alternative medical treatment etc.) the individual SAPV teams use for pain management. From this it can be deduced which procedures can be considered particularly effective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in May 2021. All German SAPV teams (n = 307) listed on the homepage of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) were contacted by post and invited to participate. A total of 175 teams (57%) responded to the request and were included in the evaluation. A descriptive data analysis was performed. RESULTS: Pain management in the German outpatient care of palliative patients is based on several components. All common pain medications are used, but primarily metamizole (99.4%) as a non-opioid analgesic, morphine (98.3%) from the opiate series and pregabalin (96.6%) as a co-analgesic are mainly prescribed. If pain therapy fails, 22.5% of the SAPV teams perform palliative sedation for symptom control on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: This cross-sectional study is the first of its kind to provide a general overview of the treatment options for pain management in German outpatient palliative care. In comparison with international studies, the question arises as to whether uniform therapy schemes and a reduction in the medication available in the individual SAPV teams could lead to an improvement in patient care.

Use of palliative sedation following Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation: A mixed-methods study of palliative care providers.

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: 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.

Sedation in pediatric palliative care: The role of pediatric palliative care teams.

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: Ambispective study with the participation of 14 PPCT working in Spain. RESULTS: 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). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: PS is a real possibility in pediatric end-of-life care and relates to care planning and team expertise.

[Standard Process for Palliative Sedation in Peking Union Medical College Hospital].

End-stage patients experience unbearable pain because of refractory symptoms.Palliative sedation is a form of palliative care which relieves patients' agony by lowering their consciousness.Standard palliative sedation can help patients die with dignity.It is distinct from euthanasia and does not alter the survival of patients.Sufficient palliative care is the premise of palliative sedation.Repeated and detailed clinical evaluation,as well as multidisciplinary involvement,is necessary for the standardized implementation of palliative sedation.Here,we proposed the standard process and specifications of palliative sedation in Peking Union Medical College Hospital.Furthermore,we reported a case of palliative sedation for an advanced cancer patient with refractory delirium and living pain to demonstrate its application in clinical practice.