Dementia patients in palliative care according to data from the German National Hospice and Palliative Care Register (2009-2021).

BACKGROUND: People with dementia are less in focus of palliative care research than other patient groups even though the awareness of their palliative and end-of-life care needs is rising. Empirical data analyses on people with dementia in palliative care services are lacking. AIM: To explore the prevalence of dementia diagnoses as per the ICD criteria among users of various palliative care settings and to compare use of palliative services, care pathways, and outcomes in people with and without a dementia diagnosis. DESIGN: We conducted retrospective analysis of dementia diagnoses as per ICD (F00-F03/G30) in the German National Hospice and Palliative Care Register between 2009 and 2021. The analysis used methods of descriptive and inferential statistics, including the Bonferroni correction for alpha error inflation. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We limited the analysis to the subsample of people aged over 64. RESULTS: The prevalence of dementia in the different settings of palliative care was lower than in the age-comparable population: Of the 69,116 data sets included in the analysis, a small minority (3.3%) was coded with dementia as the principal diagnosis. Among patients on inpatient palliative care wards, 0.8% (148 of 19,161) had a dementia diagnosis, as did 2.2% (52 of 2,380) of those under hospital palliative care support teams and 4.3% (2,014 of 46,803) of those receiving specialized palliative care at home. CONCLUSIONS: The records of the German National Hospice and Palliative Care Register suggest that the prevalence of dementia is lower than one might expect from general population data, though numbers are in line with international studies on proportion of dementia patients receiving palliative care. Future research could usefully examine whether this discrepancy stems either from omissions in coding dementia as patients' principal diagnosis respectively from lapses in documentation of a dementia diagnosis previously made, or from barriers to accessing palliative care services or even displays being excluded from palliative care when trying to access it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No registration.

Knowledge and Public Perception of Palliative Care in Germany.

Background: Literature reviews reveal poor knowledge and awareness of palliative care in the public. Health literacy deficits impact access to palliative care. Objectives: The aim of this manuscript is to explore the public perception of palliative care in Germany. Design: Triangulated qualitative research design: a snowball-spread online survey and a random pedestrian survey. Setting/Subjects: Citizens in Germany. Results: The pedestrian survey (n = 100) revealed 34% of the participants being not familiar with palliative care. The online survey (n = 994) 5.7% of participants reported to not know what palliative care was. The public's perception of palliative care is mainly medicine oriented, referring to inpatient care for the immediately dying; however, further significant misperceptions were scarce. Conclusions: The public perception shows an indistinct picture of palliative care, and some misconceptions about the objectives and areas of responsibility of the subject, meanwhile, palliative care is known to a majority of people. Understanding partly incomplete pictures of patients and relatives may help to react appropriately in staff-patient interactions and improve public relations.

Symptom burden and relief in palliative care units of German Comprehensive Cancer Center and other hospitals.

PURPOSE: The National Hospice and Palliative Registry contains patient data from German hospice and palliative care facilities about symptoms. The aim of the study at hand is to differentiate symptom burden of patients in palliative care units between Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) and other hospitals regarding symptom burden and relief of patients in palliative care units. METHODS: The registry analysis provided data of patients in palliative care units (2014-2018). We analyzed characteristic and symptom-related data on 18 symptoms, with considerable symptom-burdened patients (moderate or severe). We followed a cancer (yes/no) and facility-specific descriptive analysis (f, %, µ, Mdn, SD, V, r) using SPSS. RESULTS: We evaluated 10,447 patient records (CCC: 4234 pts/non CCC 6,213 pts), 82% with a cancer diagnosis. For cancer patients, the mean age in CCC-affiliated palliative care units was 68 (SD 19-99) years, in others 73 (SD 23-104) years (p < 0.05; V = 0.2). The proportion of patients with significant symptom burden is lower in CCC-affiliated than in other palliative care units. The difference between facilities shows a significant weak effect in pain, vomiting and constipation, depressiveness, anxiety, and tension. The proportion of cases which symptom burden could be alleviated is higher in CCC-affiliated palliative care units with significant weak/medium effect in pain, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, constipation, wound care problems, depressiveness, anxiety, tension, confusion, and problems in organizing care. CONCLUSION: We found differences in symptom burden and symptom relief between CCC-affiliated and other palliative care units. CCCs should continue to feel responsible for sharing knowledge about symptom relief, such as through standard operating procedures and education.

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.

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).

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Adult glioma.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCCs) are explanations of the organisation and actions necessary to provide high-quality care to patients with a specific cancer type. They are compiled by a working group of European experts representing disciplines involved in cancer care, and provide oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers with an overview of the essential requirements in any healthcare system. The focus here is on adult glioma. Gliomas make up approximately 80% of all primary malignant brain tumours. They are highly diverse and patients can face a unique cognitive, physical and psychosocial burden, so personalised treatments and support are essential. However, management of gliomas is currently very heterogeneous across Europe and there are only few formally-designated comprehensive cancer centres with brain tumour programmes. To address this, the ERQCC glioma expert group proposes frameworks and recommendations for high quality care, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. Wherever possible, glioma patients should be treated from diagnosis onwards in high volume neurosurgical or neuro-oncology centres. Multidisciplinary team working and collaboration is essential if patients' length and quality of life are to be optimised.

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.

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.

Palliative care and new technologies. The use of smart sensor technologies and its impact on the Total Care principle.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is an integral part of health care, which in term has become increasingly technologized in recent decades. Lately, innovative smart sensors combined with artificial intelligence promise better diagnosis and treatment. But to date, it is unclear: how are palliative care concepts and their underlying assumptions about humans challenged by smart sensor technologies (SST) and how can care benefit from SST? AIMS: The paper aims to identify changes and challenges in palliative care due to the use of SST. In addition, normative guiding criteria for the use of SST are developed. METHODS: The principle of Total Care used by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) forms the basis for the ethical analysis. Drawing on this, its underlying conceptions of the human and its socio-ethical aspects are examined with a phenomenological focus. In the second step, the advantages, limitations, and socio-ethical challenges of using SST with respect to the Total Care principle are explored. Finally, ethical-normative requirements for the application of SST are derived. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: First, SST are limited in their measurement capabilities. Second, SST have an impact on human agency and autonomy. This concerns both the patient and the caregiver. Third, some aspects of the Total Care principle are likely to be marginalized due to the use of SST. The paper formulates normative requirements for using SST to serve human flourishing. It unfolds three criteria according to which SST must be aligned: (1) evidence and purposefulness, (2) autonomy, and (3) Total Care.

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.

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.

Possible age-related differences in healthcare professionals' perspectives on younger and older patients' autonomy and decision-making in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care: exploratory secondary qualitative content and linguistic conversation analysis of interviews with healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Chronic illnesses and multi-morbidity can threaten competence and independence, particularly in old age. Autonomy becomes increasingly important in the context of sedation, as in this case medication leads to (further) changes of consciousness. The study aimed to identify possible age-related differences in the perspectives of healthcare professionals on patients' autonomy, in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care. METHOD: Secondary analysis of interviews with healthcare professionals, analysed by qualitative content and linguistic conversation analysis. The interviews analysed span 51 healthcare professionals in specialised palliative care across 17 centres (adult inpatient and specialist palliative home care services) in Germany. RESULTS: The study shows that the perspectives of healthcare professionals on patients' autonomy differs according to the age of the patient in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care. The different perspectives may lead to different ways of treating the patients, for example a greater space of autonomy and decision-making for younger patients. CONCLUSION: In particular, measures that may restrict consciousness (e.g. sedation) and thus influence patients' ability to fully exercise their autonomy and fully participate in decision-making require special attention by healthcare professionals with respect to possible influences on treatment, such as different perceptions by healthcare professionals based on the patient's age or age-related stereotypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study "SedPall" is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00015047 ).

COVID-19: Challenges and solutions for the provision of care to seriously ill and dying people and their relatives during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic - perspectives of pandemic response team members: A qualitative study on the basis of expert interviews (part of PallPan).

BACKGROUND: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic's initial waves, bans on visiting and isolation measures placed limits on providing services for seriously ill and dying people and their relatives. Pandemic response teams at governmental level (macro), at federal state and municipal level (meso) and in healthcare facilities (micro) played their role in pandemic management procedures. AIM: To explore pandemic-related challenges and solutions of pandemic response teams regarding the provision of care to seriously ill and dying people and their relatives. Findings were to be integrated into a national strategy (PallPan). DESIGN: Semi-structured expert interviews (10/2020-2/2021) analysed via structured content analysis. SETTINGPARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 41 members, who discussed the work of 43 German pandemic response teams (micro n = 23; meso n = 20; no members were available at macro level) from 14 German federal states. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 43 teams took account of the needs of seriously ill and dying. Their main challenges resulted from pandemic-related legal requirements in hospitals and long-term care facilities. The implementation of such was in the remits of the meso level. Dysfunctional or non-existent communication between the levels was reported to be challenging. To foster patient-related solutions the micro level pandemic response teams supported individual decisions to enable patient-relative contact for example, visiting and saying goodbye outside, meeting via digital solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic response teams evidently struggled to find appropriate solutions to ease pandemic-related impact on the care of seriously ill and dying patients and their relatives. We recommend bringing palliative care expertise on board.

[COVID-19 pandemic response teams: organization, competencies, and challenges-understanding and using structural realities]. / COVID-19-Pandemiekrisenstäbe: Organisation, Befugnisse und Herausforderungen ­ Strukturelle Gegebenheiten verstehen und nutzen.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Germany has a federal state system. Pandemic response teams are key instruments of pandemic management. The aim of this article is to describe the structures and powers of pandemic response teams that were explored during a study on the care of the critically ill and dying in times of a pandemic (PallPan). The focus is on health-related pandemic response teams on the national state level (macrolevel) and federal and community level (mesolevel) as well as pandemic response teams in healthcare facilities (microlevel). METHODS: Members of pandemic response teams took part in qualitative semi-structured interviews (October 2020-February 2021). The evaluation was carried out by means of qualitative structuring content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-two persons reported on 43 crisis teams from 14 federal states. Response teams in healthcare facilities and public administration differ primarily with regard to their competencies. Officially predetermined regulations regarding the initiation, personal composition, tasks, responsibilities, and competencies of pandemic response teams are not predefined in Germany. The macrolevel defined the legal and financial conditions for pandemic management. Meso- and microlevel pandemic response teams bear responsibility for maintaining the provision of healthcare. The defaults of local public health authorities are decisive for the pandemic response team's work. Main tasks and measures were the provision of information and the procurement and distribution of resources. DISCUSSION: In terms of preparing for future pandemic situations, the knowledge gained will help to address concerns about maintaining healthcare for specific population groups, such as seriously ill and dying people, to the locally differing responsible bodies, even under pandemic conditions.

Advance directives in patients with head and neck cancer - status quo and factors influencing their creation.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning including living wills and durable powers of attorney for healthcare is a highly relevant topic aiming to increase patient autonomy and reduce medical overtreatment. Data from patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are not currently available. The main objective of this study was to survey the frequency of advance directives (AD) in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: In this single center cross-sectional study, we evaluated patients during their regular follow-up consultations at Germany's largest tertiary referral center for head and neck cancer, regarding the frequency, characteristics, and influencing factors for the creation of advance directives using a questionnaire tailored to our cohort. The advance directives included living wills, durable powers of attorney for healthcare, and combined directives. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-six patients were surveyed from 07/01/2019 to 12/31/2019 (response rate = 68.9%). The mean age was 62.4 years (SD 11.9), 26.9% were women (n = 120). 46.4% of patients (n = 207) reported having authored at least one advance directive. These documents included 16 durable powers of attorney for healthcare (3.6%), 75 living wills (16.8%), and 116 combined directives (26.0%). In multivariate regression analysis, older age (OR ≤ 0.396, 95% CI 0.181-0.868; p = 0.021), regular medication (OR = 1.896, 95% CI 1.029-3.494; p = 0.040), and the marital status ("married": OR = 2.574, 95% CI 1.142-5.802; p = 0.023; and "permanent partnership": OR = 6.900, 95% CI 1.312-36.295; p = 0.023) emerged as significant factors increasing the likelihood of having an advance directive. In contrast, the stage of disease, the therapeutic regimen, the ECOG status, and the time from initial diagnosis did not correlate with the presence of any type of advance directive. Ninety-one patients (44%) with advance directives created their documents before the initial diagnoses of head and neck cancer. Most patients who decide to draw up an advance directive make the decision themselves or are motivated to do so by their immediate environment. Only 7% of patients (n = 16) actively made a conscious decision not create an advance directive. CONCLUSION: Less than half of head and neck cancer patients had created an advance directive, and very few patients have made a conscious decision not to do so. Older and comorbid patients who were married or in a permanent partnership had a higher likelihood of having an appropriate document. Advance directives are an essential component in enhancing patient autonomy and allow patients to be treated according to their wishes even when they are unable to consent. Therefore, maximum efforts are advocated to increase the prevalence of advance directives, especially in head and neck cancer patients, whose disease often takes a crisis-like course.

Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. AIM: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. DESIGN: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board (n = 13) approved final recommendations. RESULTS: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 (n = 40), Round 3 (n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. CONCLUSIONS: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.

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.