BACKGROUND: Canada does not have a standardized ethical and practice framework for continuous palliative sedation therapy (CPST). Although a number of institutional and regional guidelines exist, Canadian practice varies. Given the lack of international and national consensus on CPST, the Canadian Society for Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) formed a special task force to develop a consensus-based framework for CPST. OBJECTIVE: Through a preliminary review of sedation practices nationally and internationally, it was determined that although considerable consensus was emerging on this topic, there remained both areas of contention and a lack of credible scientific evidence to support a definitive clinical practice guideline. This led to the creation of a framework to help guide policy, practice, and research. METHODS: This framework was developed through the following steps: 1) literature review; 2) identification of issues; 3) preparation of a draft framework; 4) expert consultation and revision; 5) presentation at conferences and further revision; and 6) further revision and national consensus building. RESULTS: A thorough literature review, including gray literature, of sedation therapy at the end of life was conducted from which an initial framework was drafted. This document was reviewed by 30 multidisciplinary experts in Canada and internationally, revised several times, and then submitted to CSPCP members for review. Consensus was high on most parts of the framework. CONCLUSION: The framework for CPST will provide a basis for the development of safe, effective, and ethical use of CPST for patients in palliative care and at the end of life.
BACKGROUND: Canada does not have a standardized ethical and practice framework for continuous palliative sedation therapy (CPST). Although a number of institutional and regional guidelines exist, Canadian practice varies. Given the lack of international and national consensus on CPST, the Canadian Society for Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) formed a special task force to develop a consensus-based framework for CPST. OBJECTIVE: Through a preliminary review of sedation practices nationally and internationally, it was determined that although considerable consensus was emerging on this topic, there remained both areas of contention and a lack of credible scientific evidence to support a definitive clinical practice guideline. This led to the creation of a framework to help guide policy, practice, and research. METHODS: This framework was developed through the following steps: 1) literature review; 2) identification of issues; 3) preparation of a draft framework; 4) expert consultation and revision; 5) presentation at conferences and further revision; and 6) further revision and national consensus building. RESULTS: A thorough literature review, including gray literature, of sedation therapy at the end of life was conducted from which an initial framework was drafted. This document was reviewed by 30 multidisciplinary experts in Canada and internationally, revised several times, and then submitted to CSPCP members for review. Consensus was high on most parts of the framework. CONCLUSION: The framework for CPST will provide a basis for the development of safe, effective, and ethical use of CPST for patients in palliative care and at the end of life.
Authors: Dietmar Weixler; Sophie Roider-Schur; Rudolf Likar; Claudia Bozzaro; Thomas Daniczek; Angelika Feichtner; Christoph Gabl; Bernhard Hammerl-Ferrari; Maria Kletecka-Pulker; Ulrich H J Körtner; Hilde Kössler; Johannes G Meran; Aurelia Miksovsky; Bettina Pusswald; Thomas Wienerroither; Herbert Watzke Journal: Wien Med Wochenschr Date: 2016-12-06
Authors: Shirley H Bush; Salmaan Kanji; José L Pereira; Daniel H J Davis; David C Currow; David Meagher; Kiran Rabheru; David Wright; Eduardo Bruera; Michael Hartwick; Pierre R Gagnon; Bruno Gagnon; William Breitbart; Laura Regnier; Peter G Lawlor Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Philipp R Klosa; Carsten Klein; Maria Heckel; Alexandra C Bronnhuber; Christoph Ostgathe; Stephanie Stiel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 3.603