Maria Sercu1, Peter Pype2, Thierry Christiaens2, Anselme Derese2, Myriam Deveugele2. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: maria.sercu@skynet.be. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Palliative sedation (PS) is a far-reaching palliative measure with a life-shortening potential. Guidelines provide only for a restricted use of PS and as a last resort. OBJECTIVES: To explore PS practice in end-of-life (EoL) home care. METHODS: This was a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 52 general practitioners (GPs) of Flanders, Belgium. RESULTS: Apart from GPs who adhere to the existing prerequisites for PS, opinions diverge among GPs on the indication area for PS and on possible life-shortening intentions. The key to GPs' broadened view on "which suffering merits PS" is the fragile context of EoL home care, and the key to GPs' possible life-shortening intentions is their need to facilitate the dying process, when trying or lengthy. When honoring a terminally ill patient's request for euthanasia, several GPs prefer slow euthanasia using PS to a lethal injection. CONCLUSION: PS home practice deviates from the PS guidelines' recommendations. In addition to the GPs' shortage of knowledge, the guidelines' recommendations do not always meet the particular needs of EoL home care. If one consideration of EoL home care is to respect a patient's wish to die at home, then the pre-emptive use of PS to avoid a futile transfer to the hospital in the case of an undesirable turn of events deserves more attention in the PS debate.
CONTEXT: Palliative sedation (PS) is a far-reaching palliative measure with a life-shortening potential. Guidelines provide only for a restricted use of PS and as a last resort. OBJECTIVES: To explore PS practice in end-of-life (EoL) home care. METHODS: This was a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 52 general practitioners (GPs) of Flanders, Belgium. RESULTS: Apart from GPs who adhere to the existing prerequisites for PS, opinions diverge among GPs on the indication area for PS and on possible life-shortening intentions. The key to GPs' broadened view on "which suffering merits PS" is the fragile context of EoL home care, and the key to GPs' possible life-shortening intentions is their need to facilitate the dying process, when trying or lengthy. When honoring a terminally ill patient's request for euthanasia, several GPs prefer slow euthanasia using PS to a lethal injection. CONCLUSION: PS home practice deviates from the PS guidelines' recommendations. In addition to the GPs' shortage of knowledge, the guidelines' recommendations do not always meet the particular needs of EoL home care. If one consideration of EoL home care is to respect a patient's wish to die at home, then the pre-emptive use of PS to avoid a futile transfer to the hospital in the case of an undesirable turn of events deserves more attention in the PS debate.
Keywords:
General practitioner; continuous deep sedation; decision making; end-of-life care; home care; practice guideline; sedation; sedation to unconsciousness; terminal care
Authors: Sebastiano Mercadante; Francesco Masedu; Alessandro Mercadante; Franco Marinangeli; Federica Aielli Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Stijn Vissers; Sigrid Dierickx; Lenzo Robijn; Joachim Cohen; Luc Deliens; Freddy Mortier; Kenneth Chambaere Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Maria Sercu; Veerle Van Renterghem; Peter Pype; Karolien Aelbrecht; Anselme Derese; Myriam Deveugele Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Margaux Vieille; Lionel Dany; Pierre Le Coz; Sophie Avon; Charlotte Keraval; Sébastien Salas; Cécile Bernard Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2021-05-24