Vanderelst, M. (Michael)

Filtering

2021 - 20222

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.7b3337ef-b9fd-4851-a170-8fb939ed5cd4

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review
    (SAGE, 2021) Payne, S. (Sheila); Rijpstra, M. (Maaike); Hasselaar, J. (Jeroen); Centeno, C. (Carlos); Arantzamendi-Solabarrieta, M. (María); Vanderelst, M. (Michael); Radbruch, L. (Lukas); Preston, N. (Nancy); Belar, A. (Alazne); Ling, J. (Julie)
    Background: Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed. Aim: To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured. Design: Integrative review of most recent empirical research. Data sources: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010–2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness. Results: Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement. Conclusions: There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Review of European guidelines on palliative sedation: a foundation for the updating of the European Association for Palliative Care framework
    (Mary Ann Liebert, 2022) Menten, J. (Johan); Mosoiu, D. (Daniela); Payne, S. (Sheila); Rijpstra, M. (Maaike); Jaspers, B. (Birgit); Garralda, E. (Eduardo); Hasselaar, J. (Jeroen); Centeno, C. (Carlos); Csikos, A. (Agnes); Mercadante, S. (Sebastiano); Surges, S. M. (Séverine M.); Vanderelst, M. (Michael); Radbruch, L. (Lukas); Brunsch, H. (Holger)
    in 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to improve the quality of their content and the applicability of their recommendations.