ObjectivesIn 2016, a new law was adopted in France granting patients the right, under specific conditions, to continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD). The goal of this study was to measure the frequency of requests for CDSUD from patients in palliative care.MethodsThe data collected from the medical records of patients in palliative care units (PCU) or followed by palliative care support teams (PCST) in the Rhône-Alpes area, who died after CDSUD, focused on the patient’s characteristics, the drugs used (and compliance with regulatory processes).ResultsAll 12 PCU and 12 of the 24 PCST were included. Among the 8500 patients followed, 42 (0.5%) requested CDSUD until death. The patients were: 65.7 (SD=13.7) years old, highly educated (69%), had cancer (81%), refractory symptoms (98%) and mostly psychoexistential distress (69%). The request was rejected for 2 (5%) patients and delayed for 31 (74%) patients. After a delay of a mean 8 days, 13 (31%) patients were granted CDSUD. The drug used was midazolam at 115 mg/24 hours (15–480), during a mean of 3 days. PCUs used lower dosages than PCSTs (83 vs 147), with significantly lower initial doses (39 mg vs 132 mg, p=0.01). A life-threatening condition was recorded in 13 cases (31%) and a collegial decision was taken in 25 cases (60%).ConclusionThis study highlights the low rate of request and the even lower rate of CDSUD in specialised palliative care. However, the sedation for psychoexistential distress and the lack of procedure records raise ethical questions.

Aim The aim of the present study was to find out physicians’ perceptions about the transfer of dying nursing home residents to emergency departments. Method This qualitative study used semi‐structured interviews, and data were analyzed using qualitative methods. Participants were medical directors of nursing homes who were informed by e‐mail and included when they agreed to take part in our study. Results We interviewed 12 medical directors until data saturation. The following themes emerged: (i) related to the resident – difficulties in identifying the end of life, refractory symptoms and lack of knowledge of the resident's wishes; (ii) related to the family – denial of the end of life/fear of death, lack of confidence in the nursing home and conflict among family members; (iii) related to the nursing staff – fear of death, lack of communication, lack of training, lack of staff (especially of nurses during the nightshift) and use of temporary employees; and (iv) related to the physicians – lack of anticipation of the end of life situation, difficulty in accessing some drugs, inadequate working hours in the nursing home, conflicting medical opinions of the GP and medical director, and lack of training on palliative care issues. Conclusions These results suggest many ways of reducing the transfer of dying residents to emergency departments through palliative care training, and communication about advance care planning. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 249–253.

ObjectiveTo assess appropriateness of end-of-life treatments provided to actively dying patients attending the emergency department of a primary care hospital.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of patients who died in the emergency department of a French primary care hospital between January 2014 and January 2017. The deceased were identified through the admissions register. Then, electronic medical records were screened for bio-demographic data, data relative to decisions to withhold or withdraw treatments, to diagnosis and to the care provided. Patients were clustered into two categories, actively dying or non-actively dying, using clinical opinion based on their medical records. Appropriateness of care was appraised following French guidelines.ResultsOne hundred and forty-six deaths were recorded. Actively dying patients mostly suffered from vascular conditions (29.4%). When compared to the overall sample, they were more likely to have decisions to withhold or withdraw treatments (OR = 5.3 [1.56; 20.7], p-value = 0.003), to have strong opioids (OR = 5.32 [2.1; 13.9], p-value <0.0001), hypnotics (OR = 2.6 [0.95; 8.39], p-value = 0.05), and scopolamine (OR = 2.5 [1.1; 6.13], p-value = 0.03). Moreover, they were less likely to have unbeneficial treatments in terminal conditions, such as resuscitation care (OR = 0.06 [0.001; 0.52], p = 0.002) and antibiotics (OR = 0.42 [0.19; 0.92], p-value = 0.022). There were no differences in rate of hydration, venous access and use of tracheal aspirations.ConclusionsOverall, actively dying patients were appropriately supported. However, several issues regarding hydration management, drug administration routes, and broncho-pulmonary secretions management remain to be addressed.

ObjectiveIntegrated palliative care for populations with cancer is now highly recommended. However, numerous physicians working in cancer care are still reluctant to refer patients to specialist palliative care teams. This study explores their perceptions of palliative care and factors influencing reasons to refer to specialist palliative care.MethodsWe used a qualitative methodology based on semistructured interviews with physicians working in cancer care, in two tertiary hospitals and one comprehensive cancer centre with access to a specialist palliative care team. Forty-six physicians were invited and 18 interviews were performed until data saturation. Participants were mainly men, licensed in cancer care, 37.9 years old on average and had 13 years of professional experience. The length of interviews was on average 34 min (SD=3). Analysis was performed accordingly with the thematic analysis.ResultsThe data analysis found four themes: symptom management as a trigger, psychosocial support, mediation provided by interventions, and the association with terminal care or death. Palliative care integrated interventions were mainly perceived as holistic approaches that offered symptom management expertise and time. They were valued for helping in consolidating decision-making from a different or external perspective, or an ‘outside look’. Several barriers were identified, often due to the confusion between terminal care and palliative care. This was further highlighted by the avoidance of the words ‘palliative care’, which were associated with death.ConclusionsNational policies for promoting palliative care seemed to have failed in switching oncologists' perception of palliative care, which they still consider as terminal care.

Background Advanced cancer patients often experience multiple symptoms at a same time. This might lead to polypharmacy and increase adverse events representing major threats to the quality of health care, especially in palliative care situations. Mirtazapine, an antidepressant agent, has been suggested as a potential relevant drug to alleviate multiple cancer-related symptoms at a same time. Therefore, the present study aims to assess the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating multiple symptoms at a same time in advanced cancer patients suffering from a major depressive episode compared to a group receiving escitalopram, another antidepressant agent. Methods Multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 12 palliative care services in France. The study will be based on a mixed-method methodology using parallel groups, of oral mirtazapine compared with oral escitalopram, with a 56 day follow-up. The primary outcome will be an improvement of the Global health Status (issued from the EORTC-QLQ-C30) on day 56. 418 participants will be clinically followed-up on day 7 and 56 and will have a telephonic assessment on days 14 and 28. A sub-sample of participants will be invited to take part in semi-structured qualitative interviews at baseline and day 56. For the qualitative part, purposeful sampling will be used. Discussion This study will provide evidence for the pharmaceutics management of poly-symptomatology in advanced cancer patients. This could lead to important changes in the management of those patients by using a single molecule to alleviate multiple symptoms at a same time, potentially improving medication adherence, symptoms’ control, and reducing the risk of medications adverse events. Trial registration Trial registration: NCT04763135. Registered 18 March 2021.