Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Department of Palliative Medicine, LMU University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University München, Comprehensive Cancer Centre Munich (CCCM), Germany.
J Palliat Med. 2024 Apr;27(4):487-494. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2023.0159. Epub 2024 Feb 7.
Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.
在姑息治疗中镇静的术语问题以及对研究和临床决策的影响经常被报道。为了收集姑息治疗中镇静实践定义在临床病例中的应用数据,并分析对高质量定义的影响。我们对参与制定姑息治疗镇静指南的国际专家和欧洲姑息治疗协会(EAPC)的成员进行了一项在线调查,采用便利样本。参与者被要求将四个已发表的定义应用于四个病例描述。使用描述性统计方法分析数据。共有 32 名专家和 271 名 EAPC 成员完成了调查。在 4848 个案例中,正确应用了 45.4%(=2200 个)的定义。四项定义的平均正确应用数(最高 4 分)为 SedPall 研究组的定义为 2.2±1.14,EAPC 的定义为 1.8±1.03,挪威医学协会的定义为 1.7±0.98,日本姑息医学学会的定义为 1.6±1.01。16 个病例-定义对的正确应用率在 70/303(23.1%)到 227/303(74.9%)之间不等。定义和病例描述的内容以及自由文本评论解释了参与者的决策和误解。在简化条件下,姑息治疗中镇静的定义经常被错误地应用于临床病例场景。这表明临床沟通和研究可能会因误解以及数据的不一致标记或报告而受到负面影响。临床试验注册号:DRKS00015047。