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.

What is an "early palliative care" intervention? A scoping review of controlled studies in oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Early palliative care (EPC) has been advocated to improve cancer patients' health. However, EPC differs with regard to its elements and target groups. It is not known which parts of EPC contribute to effectiveness for which patient group. This scoping review provides a structured analysis of EPC interventions and outcome measures. DESIGN: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL up to February 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), nonrandomized trials, cohort studies (CS), and controlled before-after studies of EPC in adult patients in English, Dutch, and German language. Interventions had to be self-labeled as EPC. Screening and data extraction were performed by two raters. A structured analysis incorporating the TIDieR checklist was performed to describe the elements of the interventions. RESULTS: We screened 2651 articles, resulting in 40 articles being included: 34 studies were RCT and six studies were CS with a mean sample size of 208 patients. Patients with pancreatic (n = 10) and lung cancer (n = 9) were most often included. Studies reported different reference points for the onset of EPC such as time after diagnosis of incurable cancer (n = 18) or prognosis (n = 9). Thirteen studies provided information about elements of EPC and eight studies about the control intervention. Most frequent elements of EPC were symptom management (n = 28), case management (n = 16), and advance care planning (ACP; n = 15). Most frequently reported outcome measures were health-related quality of life (n = 26), symptom intensity (n = 6), resource use, and the patient's mood (n = 4 each). CONCLUSION: The elicited heterogeneity of ECP in combination with deficits of reporting are considerable barriers that should be addressed to further develop effective EPC interventions for different groups of cancer patients.

Evaluating requests for physician-assisted suicide. A survey among German oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients form a notable proportion of requestors for physician-assisted suicide (PAS). This manuscript provides data on German oncologists' views concerning due criteria for the assessment of requests for PAS and quality assurance. METHODS: The German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) has conducted a survey among its members to elicit data about practices and views on regulating PAS in March 2021. Descriptive analysis and bivariate logistic regression of quantitative data on socio-demographic and other determinants possibly associated with respondents' views on PAS as well as content analysis of qualitative data were performed. RESULTS: About 57.1% (n = 425) of respondents (n = 745) indicated that they had been asked for information about PAS by patients. Information about palliative (92.7%; n = 651) and psychological care options (85.6%; n = 598) was deemed most important in cases of requests for PAS. More than half of the respondents (57.6%; n = 429) were in favour of a formal expert assessment of decisional capacity and about 33.4% (n = 249) favoured a time span of 14 days between the counselling and prescription of a lethal drug. There was no association between participants who received more requests and a preference for disclosing publicly their willingness to assist with suicide. A majority of respondents requested measures of quality assurance (71.3%; n = 531). CONCLUSION: According to respondents' views, the regulation of PAS will require diligent procedures regarding the assessment of decisional capacity and counselling. The findings suggest that the development of adequate and feasible criteria to assess the quality of practices is an important task.

Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics case consultations (CECCs) provide a structured approach in situations of ethical uncertainty or conflicts. There have been increasing calls in recent years to assess the quality of CECCs by means of empirical research. This study provides detailed data of a descriptive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a CECC service in a department of cardiology and intensive care at a German university hospital. METHODS: Semi-structured document analysis of CECCs was conducted in the period of November 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. All documents were analysed by two researchers independently. RESULTS: Twenty-four CECCs were requested within the study period, of which most (n = 22; 92%) had been initiated by physicians of the department. The patients were an average of 79 years old (R: 43-96), and 14 (58%) patients were female. The median length of stay prior to request was 12.5 days (R: 1-65 days). The most frequent diagnoses (several diagnoses possible) were cardiology-related (n = 29), followed by sepsis (n = 11) and cancer (n = 6). Twenty patients lacked decisional capacity. The main reason for a CECC request was uncertainty about the balancing of potential benefit and harm related to the medically indicated treatment (n = 18). Further reasons included differing views regarding the best individual treatment option between health professionals and patients (n = 3) or between different team members (n = 3). Consensus between participants could be reached in 18 (75%) consultations. The implementation of a disease specific treatment intervention was recommended in five cases. Palliative care and limitation of further disease specific interventions was recommended in 12 cases. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in-depth evaluation of a CECC service set up for an academic department of cardiology and intensive medical care. Patient characteristics and the issues deliberated during CECC provide a starting point for the development and testing of more tailored clinical ethics support services and research on CECC outcomes.

Limiting treatment and shortening of life: data from a cross-sectional survey in Germany on frequencies, determinants and patients' involvement.

BACKGROUND: Limiting treatment forms part of practice in many fields of medicine. There is a scarcity of robust data from Germany. Therefore, in this paper, we report results of a survey among German physicians with a focus on frequencies, aspects of decision making and determinants of limiting treatment with expected or intended shortening of life. METHODS: Postal survey among a random sample of physicians working in the area of five German state chambers of physicians using a modified version of the questionnaire of the EURELD Consortium. Information requested referred to the patients who died most recently within the last 12 months. Logistic regression was performed to analyse associations between characteristics of physicians and patients regarding limitation of treatment with expected or intended shortening of life. RESULTS: As reported elsewhere, 734 physicians responded (response rate 36.9%) and of these, 174 (43.2%) reported a withholding and 144 (35.7%) a withdrawal of treatment. Eighty one physicians estimated that there was at least some shortening of life as a consequence. In 25.9% of these cases hastening death had been discussed with the patient at the time or immediately prior to this action. Types of treatment most frequently limited was artificial nutrition (n = 35). Bivariate analysis indicates that limitation of treatment with possible or intended shortening of life for patients aged > 75 years is performed significantly more often (p = 0.007, OR 1.848). There was significantly less limitation of treatment in patients who died from cancer compared to patients with other causes of death (p = 0.01, OR 0.486). There was no significant statistical association with physicians' religion, palliative care qualification or frequencies of limiting treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to recent research from other European countries, limitation of treatment with expected or intended shortening of life is frequently performed amongst the investigated sample. The role of clinical and non-medical aspects possibly relevant for physicians' decision about withholding or withdrawal of treatment with possible or intended shortening of life and reasons for non-involvement of patients should be explored in more detail by means of mixed method and interdisciplinary empirical-ethical analysis.