The involvement of cancer patients in the four stages of decision-making preceding continuous sedation until death: A qualitative study

Abstract

Background:

Involving patients in decision-making is considered to be particularly appropriate towards the end of life. Professional guidelines emphasize that the decision to initiate continuous sedation should be made in accordance with the wishes of the dying person and be preceded by their consent.

Aim:

To describe the decision-making process preceding continuous sedation until death with particular attention to the involvement of the person who is dying.

Design:

Qualitative case studies using interviews.

Setting/participants:

Interviews with 26 physicians, 30 nurses and 24 relatives caring for 24 patients with cancer who received continuous sedation until death in Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Results:

We distinguished four stages of decision-making: initiation, information exchange, deliberation and the decision to start continuous sedation until death. There was wide variation in the role the patient had in the decision-making process. At one end of the spectrum (mostly in the United Kingdom), the physician discussed the possible use of sedation with the patient, but took the decision themselves. At the other end (mostly in Belgium and the Netherlands), the patient initiated the conversation and the physician’s role was largely limited to evaluating if and when the medical criteria were met.

Conclusion:

Decision-making about continuous sedation until death goes through four stages and the involvement of the patient in the decision-making varies. Acknowledging the potential sensitivity of raising the issue of end-of-life sedation, we recommend building into clinical practice regular opportunities to discuss the goals and preferences of the person who is dying for their future medical treatment and care.

Keywords

Patient participation decision-making patient-centred care continuous sedation until death palliative sedation qualitative research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Seymour

French

Richardson

. Dying matters: let’s talk about it. BMJ 2010; 341: c4860.

Bélanger

Rodríguez

Groleau

et al . Patient participation in palliative care decisions: an ethnographic discourse analysis. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2016; 11(1): 32438.

Walczak

Butow

et al . A systematic review of evidence for end-of-life communication interventions: who do they target, how are they structured and do they work? Patient Educ Couns 2016; 99: 3–16.

Sandsdalen

Hov

Høye

et al . Patients’ preferences in palliative care: a systematic mixed studies review. Palliat Med 2015; 29(5): 399–419.

Härter

. Policy and practice developments in the implementation of shared decision making: an international perspective. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011; 105: 229–233.

Chewning

Bylund

Shah

et al . Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86(1): 9–18.

Pardon

Deschepper

Vander Stichele

et al . Are patients’ preferences for information and participation in medical decision-making being met? Interview study with lung cancer patients. Palliat Med 2011; 25(1): 62–70.

Raus

Sterckx

Mortier

. Continuous deep sedation at the end of life and the ‘natural death’ hypothesis. Bioethics 2012; 26(6): 329–336.

ten Have

Welie

JVM

. Palliative sedation versus euthanasia: an ethical assessment. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014; 47(1): 123–136.

10.

Radha Krishna

. Addressing the concerns surrounding continuous deep sedation in Singapore and southeast Asia: a palliative care approach. J Bioeth Inq 2015; 12(3): 461–75.

11.

Van Der Heide

Van Delden

JJM

Onwuteaka-Philipsen

. End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years. N Engl J Med 2017; 377(5): 492–494.

12.

Cherny

Radbruch

. European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care. Palliat Med 2009; 23(7): 581–593.

13.

Papavasiliou

Payne

Brearley

et al . Continuous sedation (CS) until death: mapping the literature by bibliometric analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2013; 45(6): 1073–1082.e10.

14.

Schildmann

. Palliative sedation therapy: a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of available guidance on indication and decision making. J Palliat Med 2014; 17(5): 601–611.

15.

Abarshi

Rietjens

Robijn

et al . International variations in clinical practice guidelines for palliative sedation: a systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017; 7: 223–229.

16.

Bruinsma

Rietjens

Van Der Heide

. Continuous sedation until death: state of the art. In: Sterckx

Raus

Mortier

(eds) Continuous sedation at the end of life: ethical, clinical, and legal perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013: 29–46.

17.

Robijn

Cohen

Rietjens

et al . Trends in continuous deep sedation until death between 2007 and 2013: a repeated nationwide survey. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: 0158188.

18.

Seymour

Rietjens

Brown

et al . The perspectives of clinical staff and bereaved informal care-givers on the use of continuous sedation until death for cancer patients: the study protocol of the UNBIASED study. BMC Palliat Care 2011; 10(1): 5.

19.

Seymour

Rietjens

Bruinsma

et al . Using continuous sedation until death for cancer patients: a qualitative interview study of physicians’ and nurses’ practice in three European countries. Palliat Med 2014; 29(1): 48–59.

20.

Anquinet

Rietjens

Van Der Heide

et al . Physicians’ experiences and perspectives regarding the use of continuous sedation until death for cancer patients in the context of psychological and existential suffering at the end of life. Psychooncology 2014; 23(5): 539–546.

21.

Raus

Brown

Seale

et al . Continuous sedation until death: the everyday moral reasoning of physicians, nurses and family caregivers in the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium. BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 14.

22.

Seale

Raus

Bruinsma

et al . The language of sedation in end-of-life care: the ethical reasoning of care providers in three countries. Health 2015; 19: 339–354.

23.

Robijn

Chambaere

Raus

et al . Reasons for continuous sedation until death in cancer patients: a qualitative interview study. Eur J Cancer Care 2017; 26: 12405.

24.

Charles

Gafni

Whelan

. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49(5): 651–661.

25.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349–357.

26.

Elwyn

Frosch

Thomson

et al . Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(10): 1361–1367.

27.

Morita

Hirai

Okazaki

. Preferences for palliative sedation therapy in the Japanese general population. J Palliat Med 2002; 5(3): 375–385.

28.

Raus

Chambaere

Sterckx

. Controversies surrounding continuous deep sedation at the end of life: the parliamentary and societal debates in France. BMC Med Ethics 2016; 17(1): 36.

29.

Rietjens

Voorhees

Van Der Heide

et al . Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands. J Med Ethics 2014; 40(4): 235–240.

30.

Van Den Block

Deschepper

Bilsen

et al . Euthanasia and other end of life decisions and care provided in final three months of life: nationwide retrospective study in Belgium. BMJ 2009; 339: b2772.