Meesters Sophie, Bazata Jeremias, Handtke Violet, Gehrmann Jan, Kurkowski Sandra, Klein Carsten, Bausewein Claudia, Schildmann Eva
Department of Palliative Medicine, LMU Klinikum, Munich, Germany.
Department of Palliative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Palliat Med. 2023 Jan;37(1):140-148. doi: 10.1177/02692163221128938. Epub 2022 Oct 14.
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.
As part of the "SedPall" study, we aimed to explore circumstances in specialist palliative home care, which influence the practice of sedation.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews ( = 59) and two focus groups ( = 4, = 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.
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.
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.
关于临终镇静的现有数据表明,家庭护理环境中存在挑战,导致偏离指南或不提供镇静服务。
作为“SedPall”研究的一部分,我们旨在探索专科姑息家庭护理中影响镇静实践的情况。
半结构化定性访谈(n = 59)和两个焦点小组(n = 4,n = 5)。通过联系人进行招募。我们使用MAXQDA 2018.2,采用框架法对访谈记录进行了主题分析。
设置/参与者:来自10个姑息治疗单位和7个家庭护理团队的医生、护士和多专业团队的其他成员。
参与者报告了家庭护理的特定情况,可分为三个相互关联的主题。(1)缺乏全天候现场服务,(2)家庭的积极参与,(3)团队合作和多学科方面的挑战。参与者从报告的情况中就家庭中不同类型镇静的可行性得出了不同结论:一些人报告通常使用所有类型的镇静,而另一些人则表示某些类型的镇静在家庭护理中不可行,例如深度镇静直至死亡。大多数参与者质疑现有镇静指南在家庭护理环境中的适用性。
我们的数据表明,目前的镇静实践可能遵循医疗保健专业人员的态度或服务政策,而不是患者的需求。为了在可管理的情况下避免住院,并确保满足家庭护理的特定最佳实践标准,必须调整现有的指南建议,并辅之以针对家庭护理环境的额外支持措施。