Andrew Kamell1, Lauren Kelley Smith2. 1. 1 OSF St. Francis Medical Center , Peoria, Illinois. 2. 2 Sangre de Cristo Hospice and Palliative Care , Pueblo, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are commonly used in inpatient hospices internationally. U.S. hospice clinician views toward benzodiazepines are unknown. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were (1) to assess inpatient hospice clinician attitudes towards the benefits of benzodiazepines for various indications and (2) to compare these attitudes to current clinical recommendations and literature. METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to hospices with inpatient units nationwide. Results were analyzed, then compared to current clinical guidelines. Literature review was performed. U.S. hospice physicians and nurses were the study subjects. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement regarding benefit from benzodiazepines for various end-of-life symptoms and to answer questions regarding benzodiazepines in delirium. RESULTS: Of 143 surveys returned, 128 surveys were completed. For anxiety, 80% of participants agreed that benzodiazepines were beneficial for restlessness, dyspnea 77%, insomnia 68%, dying process 65%, agitation 57%, nausea 54%, hyperactive delirium 42%, and severe pain 38%. Nurses found benzodiazepines beneficial for more indications than physicians. Over 50% reported benzodiazepines on their order sets for agitation, insomnia, acute anxiety, chronic anxiety, chronic panic, restlessness, seizures, and withdrawal. Among physicians, 39% believe that benzodiazepines are overused within their own hospice. A literature review found very limited evidence of overall benefit from benzodiazepines for the symptoms listed above. In addition, this revealed significant evidence for risks and harms from benzodiazepines, particularly in patients at risk for delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepines are viewed favorably by most hospice nurses and many hospice physicians for various indications, despite little supportive clinical evidence along with significant potential for harm.
BACKGROUND:Benzodiazepines are commonly used in inpatient hospices internationally. U.S. hospice clinician views toward benzodiazepines are unknown. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were (1) to assess inpatient hospice clinician attitudes towards the benefits of benzodiazepines for various indications and (2) to compare these attitudes to current clinical recommendations and literature. METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to hospices with inpatient units nationwide. Results were analyzed, then compared to current clinical guidelines. Literature review was performed. U.S. hospice physicians and nurses were the study subjects. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement regarding benefit from benzodiazepines for various end-of-life symptoms and to answer questions regarding benzodiazepines in delirium. RESULTS: Of 143 surveys returned, 128 surveys were completed. For anxiety, 80% of participants agreed that benzodiazepines were beneficial for restlessness, dyspnea 77%, insomnia 68%, dying process 65%, agitation 57%, nausea 54%, hyperactive delirium 42%, and severe pain 38%. Nurses found benzodiazepines beneficial for more indications than physicians. Over 50% reported benzodiazepines on their order sets for agitation, insomnia, acute anxiety, chronic anxiety, chronic panic, restlessness, seizures, and withdrawal. Among physicians, 39% believe that benzodiazepines are overused within their own hospice. A literature review found very limited evidence of overall benefit from benzodiazepines for the symptoms listed above. In addition, this revealed significant evidence for risks and harms from benzodiazepines, particularly in patients at risk for delirium. CONCLUSIONS:Benzodiazepines are viewed favorably by most hospice nurses and many hospice physicians for various indications, despite little supportive clinical evidence along with significant potential for harm.
Authors: Raymond Viola; Cathy Kiteley; Nancy S Lloyd; Jean A Mackay; Julie Wilson; Rebecca K S Wong Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-01-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Melissa M Garrido; Holly G Prigerson; Joan D Penrod; Shatice C Jones; Kenneth S Boockvar Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Charles Kamen; Mohamedtaki A Tejani; Kavita Chandwani; Michelle Janelsins; Anita R Peoples; Joseph A Roscoe; Gary R Morrow Journal: Eur J Pharmacol Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 4.432
Authors: Pratik Pandharipande; Bryan A Cotton; Ayumi Shintani; Jennifer Thompson; Brenda Truman Pun; John A Morris; Robert Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: J Trauma Date: 2008-07
Authors: Pratik P Pandharipande; Brenda T Pun; Daniel L Herr; Mervyn Maze; Timothy D Girard; Russell R Miller; Ayumi K Shintani; Jennifer L Thompson; James C Jackson; Stephen A Deppen; Renee A Stiles; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W Breitbart; R Marotta; M M Platt; H Weisman; M Derevenco; C Grau; K Corbera; S Raymond; S Lund; P Jacobson Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Juliana Barr; Gilles L Fraser; Kathleen Puntillo; E Wesley Ely; Céline Gélinas; Joseph F Dasta; Judy E Davidson; John W Devlin; John P Kress; Aaron M Joffe; Douglas B Coursin; Daniel L Herr; Avery Tung; Bryce R H Robinson; Dorrie K Fontaine; Michael A Ramsay; Richard R Riker; Curtis N Sessler; Brenda Pun; Yoanna Skrobik; Roman Jaeschke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.598