[Palliative sedation in a university hospital: experience after introducing a specific protocol].
METHODS
A descriptive prospective study of palliative sedation (PS) records during a one year period after starting the PS protocol.


METHODS
Patients included in the PS protocol and those who had completed the "data registry form".


METHODS
Registry forms included in the PS protocol as Annex 5 (included as Annex 1 in this study).


METHODS
Personal data, data regarding basal disease, prognosis, level of information. Refractory symptoms: type, time of evolution and treatments employed. Involvement of the patient and/or representatives in decision making. Type of sedation, continuity, depth, employed, duration and results, and readjustment of other therapeutic measures.


METHODS
The SPSS 14.0 was used. For qualitative variables we studied absolute frequencies and proportions. For quantitative variables with normal distribution, we used means and standard deviations, and for non-normal distribution, medians and ranges.


RESULTS
In the study period 90 cases of PS were counted. This represented 27.6% of the patients treated in the hospital palliative care support team (PCST), and 7.03% of the total deceased patients in our hospital. Mean age of patients undergoing PS was 59.22 years old, range between 40.86 and 77.58 years, and 68.1% were men. All patients were in an advanced or terminal stage of their condition, and 49.5% in an agonal phase. In 90.4% of the cases, the main pathology was oncological. Regarding PS indication, this was jointly made between the PCST physician and the patient's usual doctor in 60 cases (66.6%). Symptoms leading to sedation were mainly dyspnea, delirium and pain. The Ethics committee was consulted in five cases. Mean time under sedation was 134.02 hours (5.5 days). In 90% of the cases, duration ranged from 50 to 218.04 hours (2-9 days). Depth of PS after induction was registered in 88.8% of the cases. Informed consent (IC) was explicit in 11.2% of the cases,and given prior to the appearance of refractory symptoms and/or agonal phase. In 88.8% of sedation cases, the IC was given by a representative. Midazolam was the most used drug of choice in 87.8% of the cases, and levomepromazine in 10.2%. Up to 15% of sedations required drug changes or combinations.


CONCLUSIONS
1) The application of a PS Protocol and the availability of a hospital PCST and an Ethical Care Committee favored a safe (correct) use of PS in a hospital lacking a palliative care unit (PCU), and a homogeneous data registry for their analysis, with quality criteria similar to those offered by a PCU. 2) We have detected areas of improvement that will be applied in the second version of our protocol.
Unidad de Hospitalización Domiciliaria--Cuidados Paliativos, Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, España. jaimeboceta@telefonica.net
J
J
Boceta Osuna
M
M
Nabal Vicuña
F
F
Martínez Peñalver
A
A
Blanco Picabia
M
M
Aguayo Canela
J L
JL
Royo Aguado
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D016292:Procedural Sedation / Q000592:standards*; D054810:Deep Sedation / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006785:Hospitals, University; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011996:Records
Cuidados paliativos; Ethics; Evaluación de la calidad; General Hospital; Hospital General; Palliative care; Palliative sedation; Quality assessment; Sedación paliativa; Ética