Palliative opioid use, palliative sedation and euthanasia: reaffirming the distinction.

We read with interest the extended essay published from Riisfeldt and are encouraged by an empirical ethics article which attempts to ground theory and its claims in the real world. However, such attempts also have real-world consequences. We are concerned to read the paper's conclusion that clinical evidence weakens the distinction between euthanasia and normal palliative care prescribing. This is important. Globally, the most significant barrier to adequate symptom control in people with life-limiting illness is poor access to opioid analgesia. Opiophobia makes clinicians reluctant to prescribe and their patients reluctant to take opioids that might provide significant improvements in quality of life. We argue that the evidence base for the safety of opioid prescribing is broader than that presented, restricting the search to palliative care literature produces significant bias as safety experience and literature for opioids and sedatives exists in many fields. This is not acknowledged in the synthesis presented. By considering additional evidence, we reject the need for agnosticism and reaffirm that palliative opioid prescribing is safe. Second, palliative sedation in a clinical context is a poorly defined concept covering multiple interventions and treatment intentions. We detail these and show that continuous deep palliative sedation (CDPS) is a specific practice that remains controversial globally and is not considered routine practice. Rejecting agnosticism towards opioids and excluding CDPS from the definition of routine care allows the rejection of Riisfeldt's headline conclusion. On these grounds, we reaffirm the important distinction between palliative care prescribing and euthanasia in practice.

Developing, implementing and evaluating an end of life care intervention.

Aim To develop, implement and evaluate a collaborative intervention in care homes seeking to increase the confidence and competence of staff in end of life care and enable more people to receive end of life care in their usual place of residence. Method A two-phase exploratory mixed methods design was used, evaluating the effect of an end of life care toolkit and associated training in care homes, facilitated by a specialist palliative care team. Six care homes in England were recruited to the intervention; 24 staff participated in discussion groups; 54 staff attended at least one training session; and pre- and post-intervention questionnaires were completed by 78 and 103 staff respectively. Results Staff confidence in receiving emotional and clinical support and managing end of life care symptoms increased post-intervention, but confidence in discussing death and dying with residents and relatives decreased. Audit data indicate greater reduction in the number of residents from participating care homes dying in hospital than those from comparison homes. Conclusion Collaborative end of life care interventions support care home staff to manage end of life and may enable residents to have choice about their place of death.

Use of Schwartz Centre Rounds in a UK hospice: Findings from a longitudinal evaluation.

Schwartz Centre Rounds® aim to explore the human and emotional impact of everyday work by giving healthcare staff the opportunity to come together in a safe but open environment. We evaluated the experience of introducing Schwartz Centre Rounds in a UK hospice over 1-year using a mixed method approach. These rounds were reported as providing staff with a greater appreciation of the interprofessional approach. Individuals were more actively acknowledged by other colleagues as a result of contributions at rounds with an appreciation of a wider team, spanning the whole organisation. This appeared to relieve feelings of isolation and enhance a sense of shared purpose. Some staff chose not to attend but valued their contribution to the organisation without witnessing the emotional impact of hospice work. Our findings indicate that Schwartz Rounds offer staff the environment to explore the human element of their work and appear to improve interprofessional working.

Dose-sensitive steroid-induced hyperglycaemia.

Steroids cause significant but under-appreciated and poorly managed glucose intolerance. In this case we describe a patient with steroid-induced hyperglycaemia who obtained a large positive impact on glycaemic control from a small reduction in her steroid dose, sufficient to alleviate the need for insulin. Developments in the treatment of steroid-induced hyperglycaemia may mean that a more active approach needs to be considered when treating steroid-related diabetes in patients whose management is palliative. We advise checking for steroid-induced hyperglycaemia by testing capillary blood glucose values 2 hours after the lunchtime meal and recommend a single morning dose of long-acting insulin to treat the condition.

Virtual visits in palliative care: about time or against the grain?

While the additional value from adding the option of virtual visits is not in question, numerous issues are raised around how to decide between face-to-face and virtual visits in individual cases and how best to set up such provision within an organisation. With only limited palliative care-specific literature and no time to set up and evaluate pilots, we had to get on and set up a prototype 'virtual visits' model, retro-fitting guidance and a supporting ethical framework. We looked at the issues spanning clinical, ethical and logistics domains; identifying areas of benefit as well as drawbacks, some specific to the rushed implementation because of COVID-19's infective risks and the 'rules' of lockdown, but many are generic areas to help guide longer term service design. Unsurprisingly, it appears clear that a 'one-size-fits-all' mentality is a poor fit for the individualised needs of the heterogeneous palliative care population. Virtual visits have great potential even if they are not a panacea.

A retrospective observation of corticosteroid use at the end of life in a hospice.

This study aimed to clarify corticosteroid prescribing during final hospice care, realizing the clinical and ethical dilemmas that may be associated with this therapy. A retrospective review was performed of deaths occurring at our unit during a 6-month period. Corticosteroid use was recorded from drug charts and cross-referenced by case note review. Fifty-one percent of 178 patients received corticosteroids, which were continued until death in 53%. Only 2% were switched from oral to parenteral corticosteroids. The reason for using corticosteroids was documented in 67% of patients. The main indications included treatment for raised intracranial pressure and to give a "boost." The foremost reason for withdrawing corticosteroids was loss of the oral route. These data confirm the high prevalence of corticosteroid use in the terminal phase, even until death. This contrasted with the near absolute withdrawal of corticosteroids once the oral route was lost. The study suggests a need for greater vigilance in corticosteroid prescribing, and identified issues to be addressed in the prescribing of these drugs.

Reflections on clinical audit in palliative care following an attempt to audit urinary catheterization.

Audit has a high profile within palliative care quality initiatives. However, there are numerous potential pitfalls to auditing. We had hoped to perform a multicentred multiprofessional audit on urinary catheterization of hospice patients. Unexpectedly, the problems encountered highlighted numerous flaws in our approach to audit. An initial standard-setting pilot study, using a prospective observational methodology, generated results for 25 patients. The audit cycle was not pursued, as the data and the process did not appear valid. Conversely there were valuable lessons from reflecting on our mistakes and reviewing historical 'wisdom'. For example, audit's interface with research can easily be misunderstood and the difficulties of audit in palliative care can be underestimated. Particularly concerning was the potential for harm from insufficient rigour within audit processes, in allowing invalid data to influence practice. Conversely, despite risks, robust studies within audit may inform the limited palliative care research base.

The potential role for automatic external defibrillators in palliative care units.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has received frequent attention by professionals and the public in recent times. Concerns regarding the potential harms for little chance of success have caused palliative care units (PCUs) doubts about initiating CPR. However, there appears to be a moral responsibility to offer CPR to some, carefully selected, patients. Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) have been shown to significantly increase chances of survival following CPR and are simple to use, even for non-professionals. It is argued that AEDs may increase the moral imperative on PCUs to offer CPR to certain patients and provide the basis for a necessary debate on where the border between appropriate active treatment and a disturbance to the aim of a peaceful death rests.