Meesters Sophie, Grüne Bettina, Bausewein Claudia, Schildmann Eva
Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Sep 13;20(1):141. doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00832-0.
Previous data indicate major differences between countries and settings regarding the intention when administering sedative drugs at the end of life and the perception, which drugs are sedating. Therefore, we aimed to explore the concept of 'sedative drugs' and the intentions of German healthcare professionals in general palliative care when administering sedative drugs at the end of life.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews with physicians and nurses (n = 49). Recruitment took place via contact persons in five hospital departments (haematology/oncology (n = 2), neurology, geriatrics, gynaecology) and five nursing homes. We thematically analysed the transcripts by the Framework approach, using MAXQDA version 2018.2.
Most interviewees referred to benzodiazepines, opioids, and antipsychotics. Some subsumed all into sedative drugs, others differentiated between sedative drugs, anxiolytics, and analgesics. In explaining their intention, interviewees particularly emphasized what they want to avoid when administering sedative drugs. We identified three main themes regarding (excluded) intentions: (1) use of sedative drugs to relieve the patient's suffering with reduction of consciousness as side effect, (2) use of sedative drugs to relieve the situation for the team and/or the family, (3) distinction between intention and expectation regarding hastening death. Interviewees often equated the term 'sedation' with inducing a state of unconsciousness, which should be avoided.
German healthcare professionals in general palliative care seem to negatively connote the term 'sedation'. Moreover, they see themselves in a more passive role by accepting a side effect rather than performing an intentional act. Critical reflection of indications and intentions in accordance with respective guidelines is needed.
先前的数据表明,在临终时使用镇静药物的意图以及对哪些药物具有镇静作用的认知方面,不同国家和环境存在重大差异。因此,我们旨在探讨“镇静药物”的概念,以及德国医疗保健专业人员在临终关怀中使用镇静药物时的意图。
对医生和护士进行半结构化定性访谈(n = 49)。通过五个医院科室(血液科/肿瘤科(n = 2)、神经科、老年科、妇科)和五个养老院的联系人进行招募。我们使用MAXQDA 2018.2版本,通过框架方法对访谈记录进行了主题分析。
大多数受访者提到了苯二氮卓类药物、阿片类药物和抗精神病药物。一些人将所有药物都归入镇静药物,另一些人则区分了镇静药物、抗焦虑药物和镇痛药。在解释他们的意图时,受访者特别强调了他们在使用镇静药物时想要避免的情况。我们确定了关于(排除的)意图的三个主要主题:(1)使用镇静药物缓解患者痛苦,但意识减退是副作用;(2)使用镇静药物缓解团队和/或家庭的状况;(3)区分加速死亡的意图和期望。受访者经常将“镇静”一词等同于诱导无意识状态,而这应该避免。
德国临终关怀领域的医疗保健专业人员似乎对“镇静”一词持负面态度。此外,他们认为自己处于更被动的角色,是接受副作用而非有意采取行动。需要根据各自的指南对适应症和意图进行批判性反思。