Background Respiratory medicine (RM) and palliative care (PC) physicians’ management of chronic breathlessness in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) and lung cancer (LC), and the influence of practice guidelines was explored via an online survey. Methods A voluntary, online survey was distributed to RM and PC physicians via society newsletter mailing lists. Results 450 evaluable questionnaires (348 (77%) RM and 102 (23%) PC) were analysed. Significantly more PC physicians indicated routine use (often/always) of opioids across conditions (COPD: 92% vs. 39%, fILD: 83% vs. 36%, LC: 95% vs. 76%; all p < 0.001) and significantly more PC physicians indicated routine use of benzodiazepines for COPD (33% vs. 10%) and fILD (25% vs. 12%) (both p < 0.001). Significantly more RM physicians reported routine use of a breathlessness score (62% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and prioritised exercise training/rehabilitation for COPD (49% vs. 7%) and fILD (30% vs. 18%) (both p < 0.001). Overall, 40% of all respondents reported reading non-cancer palliative care guidelines (either carefully or looked at them briefly). Respondents who reported reading these guidelines were more likely to: routinely use a breathlessness score (χ2 = 13.8; p < 0.001), use opioids (χ2 = 12.58, p < 0.001) and refer to pulmonary rehabilitation (χ2 = 6.41, p = 0.011) in COPD; use antidepressants (χ2 = 6.25; p = 0.044) and refer to PC (χ2 = 5.83; p = 0.016) in fILD; and use a handheld fan in COPD (χ2 = 8.75, p = 0.003), fILD (χ2 = 4.85, p = 0.028) and LC (χ2 = 5.63; p = 0.018). Conclusions These findings suggest a need for improved dissemination and uptake of jointly developed breathlessness management guidelines in order to encourage appropriate use of existing, evidence-based therapies. The lack of opioid use by RM, and continued benzodiazepine use in PC, suggest that a wider range of acceptable therapies need to be developed and trialled.

Background: Existing data on sedation at the end of life indicate challenges in the home care setting, leading to deviations from guidelines or non-provision of sedation. Aim: As part of the “SedPall” study, we aimed to explore circumstances in specialist palliative home care, which influence the practice of sedation. Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews ( n = 59) and two focus groups ( n = 4, n = 5). Recruitment took place via contact persons. We thematically analyzed the transcripts with the Framework Approach, using MAXQDA 2018.2. Setting/participants: Physicians, nurses, and other members of the multiprofessional team from 10 palliative care units and seven home care teams. Results: Participants reported home care specific circumstances that can be categorized into three interrelated topics. (1) Lack of 24/7 on-site availability, (2) active involvement of the family, (3) challenges regarding teamwork and multidisciplinarity. Participants drew different conclusions from the reported circumstances regarding the feasibility of different types of sedation at home: While some reported to generally use all types of sedation, others stated that some types of sedation are not feasible in home care, for example deep sedation until death. Most participants questioned the applicability of existing sedation guidelines in the home care setting. Conclusion: Our data indicate that sedation practices might currently follow the healthcare professional’s attitude or service policy rather than the patient’s need. To avoid hospital admission in manageable cases and ensure that home care specific best practice standards are met, existing guideline recommendations have to be adapted and supplemented by additional supporting measures specific for the home care setting.

Background Chronic illnesses and multi-morbidity can threaten competence and independence, particularly in old age. Autonomy becomes increasingly important in the context of sedation, as in this case medication leads to (further) changes of consciousness. The study aimed to identify possible age-related differences in the perspectives of healthcare professionals on patients’ autonomy, in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care. Method Secondary analysis of interviews with healthcare professionals, analysed by qualitative content and linguistic conversation analysis. The interviews analysed span 51 healthcare professionals in specialised palliative care across 17 centres (adult inpatient and specialist palliative home care services) in Germany. Results The study shows that the perspectives of healthcare professionals on patients’ autonomy differs according to the age of the patient in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care. The different perspectives may lead to different ways of treating the patients, for example a greater space of autonomy and decision-making for younger patients. Conclusion In particular, measures that may restrict consciousness (e.g. sedation) and thus influence patients’ ability to fully exercise their autonomy and fully participate in decision-making require special attention by healthcare professionals with respect to possible influences on treatment, such as different perceptions by healthcare professionals based on the patient’s age or age-related stereotypes. Trial registration The study “SedPall” is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00015047).

No abstract

No abstract