Background: Despite the global acceptance of palliative sedation, China\'s engagement in this field remains comparatively restricted. There exists a scarcity of information regarding the attitudes and experiences of hospice nurses concerning palliative sedation. Objectives: This survey aimed at investigating the attitudes of Chinese hospice nurses toward palliative sedation, as well as their practices in palliative sedation. Design: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Setting/Subjects: In 2023, the survey on palliative sedation was introduced during the opening ceremony of the largest National Symposium on New Advances in Hospice Nursing in China. Subsequently, the study questionnaire was disseminated through email to a cohort of 806 hospice nurses attending the conference. Measurements/Results: The statistical analysis was based on 641 valid responses. Among them, 508 had no experience with palliative sedation, while only 133 had such experience. Around 92.5% of hospice nurses with experience in palliative sedation agreed with the physician\'s instructions to begin palliative sedation. Nurses were present at the start of sedation in nearly all cases (97.0%), and most doctors (79.7%) and family members (82.0%) were also present. However, 8.3% of them perceived that there was no difference between palliative sedation and euthanasia. Furthermore, 13.5% of participants believed that the purpose of palliative sedation was to hasten death. Conclusions: Hospice nurses play a crucial role in the process of palliative sedation, yet they also face significant challenges. It suggests that there is an urgent need in China for the development of consensus or guidelines for palliative sedation to clarify the roles of team members, including hospice nurses.

Objective: This study aimed to survey the practice of palliative sedation in Portugal, where data on this subject were lacking. Methods: This was a prospective multicentric study that included all patients admitted to each team that agreed to participate. Patients were followed until death, discharge, or after 3 months of follow-up. Results: The study included 8 teams: 4 as palliative care units (PCU), 1 as a hospital palliative care team (HPCT), 2 as home care (HC), and 1 as HPCT and HC. Of the 361 patients enrolled, 52% were male, the median age was 76 years, and 285 (79%) had cancer. Continuous sedation was undergone by 49 (14%) patients: 26 (53%) were male, and the median age was 76. Most patients, 46 (94%), had an oncological diagnosis. Only in a minority of cases, the family, 16 (33%), or the patient, 5 (10%), participated in the decision to sedate. Delirium was the most frequent symptom leading to sedation. The medication most used was midazolam (65%). In the multivariable analysis, only age and the combined score were independently associated with sedation; patients <76 years and those with higher levels of suffering had a higher probability of being sedated. Conclusions: The practice of continuous palliative sedation in Portugal is within the range reported in other studies. One particularly relevant point was the low participation of patients and their families in the decision-making process. Each team must have a deep discussion on this aspect.

UNASSIGNED: Palliative sedation (PS) is a therapeutic intervention employed to manage severe and refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients at end of life. Inconsistencies in PS practice guidelines coupled with clinician ambiguity have resulted in confusion about how PS is best integrated into practice. Understanding the perspectives, experiences, and practices relating to this modality will provide insight into its clinical application and challenges within the palliative care landscape.
UNASSIGNED: The aim is to explore the perspectives of palliative care physicians administering PS, including how practitioners define PS, factors influencing decision making about the use of PS, and possible reasons for changes in practice patterns over time.
UNASSIGNED: A survey (n = 37) and semistructured interviews (n = 23) were conducted with palliative care physicians throughout Ontario. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by two independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated through reflexive thematic analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Five key themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization, (2) differing definitions, (3) logistical challenges, (4) perceived \"back-up\" to Medical Assistance in Dying, and (5) tool of the most responsible physician.
UNASSIGNED: There was significant variability in how participants defined PS and in frequency of use of PS. Physicians described greater ease implementing PS when practicing in palliative care units, with significant barriers faced by individuals providing home-based palliative care or working as consultants on inpatient units. Educational efforts are required about the intent and practice of PS, particularly among inpatient interprofessional teams.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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.
BACKGROUND: 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).

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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Mithilfe der spezialisierten ambulanten Palliativversorgung (SAPV) können in Deutschland schwersterkrankte und sterbende Patienten im häuslichen Umfeld bis zum Lebensende adäquat versorgt werden. Es gibt für die Schmerztherapie jedoch keine einheitlichen Standards oder Vorgaben, wie diese am besten durchgeführt werden sollte.
UNASSIGNED: Diese Arbeit dient der Grundlagenforschung im Bereich der Versorgungsforschung. Es soll dargestellt werden, welche Möglichkeiten (Einsatz verschiedener Berufsgruppen, Medikamente, alternativmedizinische Behandlungen etc.) die einzelnen SAPV-Teams für die Schmerztherapie nutzen, um daraus ableiten zu können, welche Strukturen als besonders effektiv angesehen werden können.
METHODS: Diese Querschnittsstudie wurde im Mai 2021 durchgeführt. Alle auf der Homepage der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin (DGP) gelisteten SAPV-Teams (n = 307) wurden postalisch angeschrieben und um Teilnahme gebeten. Insgesamt antworteten 175 (57 %) Teams auf die Anfrage und konnten in die Auswertung eingeschlossen werden. Es wurde eine rein deskriptive Datenauswertung durchgeführt.
UNASSIGNED: Die Schmerztherapie in der deutschen ambulanten Versorgung palliativer Patienten basiert auf unterschiedlichen Bausteinen. Alle gängigen Schmerzmedikamente werden eingesetzt, vor allem aber Metamizol (99,4 %) als Nichtopioidanalgetikum, Morphin (98,3 %) aus der Reihe der Opiate und Pregabalin (96,6 %) als Koanalgetikum. Bei nichtbeherrschbaren Schmerzen führen 22,5 % der SAPV-Teams regelhaft eine palliative Sedierung zur Symptomlinderung durch.
CONCLUSIONS: Diese Erhebung gibt als erste dieser Art einen generellen Überblick über die eingesetzten Verfahren zur Schmerztherapie in der ambulanten palliativmedizinischen Versorgung. Im Vergleich mit internationalen Studien stellt sich die Frage, ob eventuell einheitliche Therapieschemata und eine Reduktion der zur Verfügung stehenden Medikamente in den einzelnen SAPV-Teams zu einer Verbesserung der Patientenversorgung führen könnten.

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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.