Physician-reported practices on continuous deep sedation until death: A descriptive and comparative study

Author:

Papavasiliou Evangelia (Evie)1,Chambaere Kenneth2,Deliens Luc23,Brearley Sarah1,Payne Sheila1,Rietjens Judith2,Vander Stichele Robert4,Van den Block Lieve2,Lieve Van den Block,Zeger De Groote,Sarah Brearley,Augusto Caraceni,Joachim Cohen,Anneke Francke,Richard Harding,Irene J Higginson,Stein Kaasa,Karen Linden,Guido Miccinesi,Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen,Koen Pardon,Roeline Pasman,Sophie Pautex,Sheila Payne,Luc Deliens,

Affiliation:

1. International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

2. End-of-life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium

3. Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4. Heymans Institute of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Abstract

Background: Research on continuous deep sedation until death has focused on estimating prevalence and describing clinical practice across care settings. However, evidence on sedation practices by physician specialty is scarce. Aims: To compare and contrast physician-reported practices on continuous deep sedation until death between general practitioners and medical specialists. Design/participants: A secondary analysis drawing upon data from a large-scale, population-based, retrospective survey among physicians in Flanders, Belgium in 2007. Symptom prevalence and characteristics of sedation (drugs used, artificial nutrition and hydration administered, intentions, and decision-making) were measured. Results: Response rate was 58.4%. The frequency of continuous deep sedation until death among all deaths was 11.3% for general practitioners and 18.4% for medical specialists. General practitioners reported significantly higher rates of severity and mean intensity of pain, delirium, dyspnea, and nausea in the last 24 h of life for sedated patients and a higher number of severe symptoms than medical specialists. No differences were found between groups in the drugs used, except in propofol, reported only by medical specialists (in 15.8% of all cases). Artificial nutrition and hydration was withheld or withdrawn in 97.2% of general practitioner and 36.2% of medical specialist cases. Explicit life-shortening intentions were reported by both groups (for 3%–4% of all cases). Continuous deep sedation until death was initiated without consent or request of either the patient or the family in 27.9% (medical specialists) and 4.7% (general practitioners) of the cases reported. Conclusion: Considerable variation, often largely deviating from professional guidelines, was observed in physician-reported performance and decision-making, highlighting the importance of providing clearer guidance on the specific needs of the context in which continuous deep sedation until death is to be performed.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3