Ebun Abarshi1, Judith Rietjens2,3, Lenzo Robijn3, Augusto Caraceni4,5, Sheila Payne1, Luc Deliens3,6, Lieve Van den Block3,7. 1. International Observatory on End-of-Life Care, Lancaster, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 5. European Palliative Care Research Center, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway, EAPC Research Network. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Palliative sedation is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its proper use in end-of-life care. Worldwide, guidelines are used to standardise care and regulate this practice. In this review, we identify and compare national/regional clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation against the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) palliative sedation Framework and assess the developmental quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: Using the PRISMA criteria, we searched multiple databases (PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence and Google Scholar) for relevant guidelines, and selected those written in English, Dutch and Italian; published between January 2000 and March 2016. RESULTS: Of 264 hits, 13 guidelines-Belgium, Canada (3), Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Europe, and USA (2) were selected. 8 contained at least 9/10 recommendations published in the EAPC Framework; 9 recommended 'pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation in end-of-life care'; 9 recommended 'nutrition/hydration while performing sedation' and 8 acknowledged the need to 'care for the medical team'. There were striking differences in terminologies used and in life expectancy preceding the practice. Selected guidelines were conceptually similar, comparing closely to the EAPC Framework recommendations, albeit with notable variations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on AGREE II, 3 guidelines achieved top scores and could therefore be recommended for use in this context. Also, domains 'scope and purpose' and 'editorial independence' ranked highest and lowest, respectively-underscoring the importance of good reportage at the developmental stage. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVES: Palliative sedation is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its proper use in end-of-life care. Worldwide, guidelines are used to standardise care and regulate this practice. In this review, we identify and compare national/regional clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation against the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) palliative sedation Framework and assess the developmental quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: Using the PRISMA criteria, we searched multiple databases (PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence and Google Scholar) for relevant guidelines, and selected those written in English, Dutch and Italian; published between January 2000 and March 2016. RESULTS: Of 264 hits, 13 guidelines-Belgium, Canada (3), Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Europe, and USA (2) were selected. 8 contained at least 9/10 recommendations published in the EAPC Framework; 9 recommended 'pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation in end-of-life care'; 9 recommended 'nutrition/hydration while performing sedation' and 8 acknowledged the need to 'care for the medical team'. There were striking differences in terminologies used and in life expectancy preceding the practice. Selected guidelines were conceptually similar, comparing closely to the EAPC Framework recommendations, albeit with notable variations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on AGREE II, 3 guidelines achieved top scores and could therefore be recommended for use in this context. Also, domains 'scope and purpose' and 'editorial independence' ranked highest and lowest, respectively-underscoring the importance of good reportage at the developmental stage. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Keywords:
Clinical Practice Guideline; EAPC; Palliative Medicine; Sedation; Systematic Review; Terminal care
Authors: Sarah Ziegler; Margareta Schmid; Matthias Bopp; Georg Bosshard; Milo Alan Puhan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stefaan Six; Steven Laureys; Jan Poelaert; Johan Bilsen; Peter Theuns; Reginald Deschepper Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Stefaan Six; Steven Laureys; Jan Poelaert; Olivier Maîresse; Peter Theuns; Johan Bilsen; Reginald Deschepper Journal: Pain Ther Date: 2020-11-05