Article Text
Abstract
Background The propensity for certain analgesics to cause sedation is well documented, yet physician–patient dialogue does not routinely include pre-emptive exploration of preferences regarding this side effect.
Objectives To investigate the extent to which palliative patients would accept sedation as a side effect of analgesia and to identify factors affecting decision-making.
Methods Patients (n=76) known to a specialist palliative care services were given hypothetical scenarios regarding pain and asked about the acceptability of varying levels of sedation occurring as an analgesic side effect. Demographic data, including diagnosis, performance status and experience of pain and sedation, were collated for evaluation of the influence of these factors on patient opinion.
Results Most patients (89.47%) would be quite or very likely to accept mild sedation. A significant minority (40.79%) would accept high levels of sedation. There is no significant association with the acceptability of sedation according to demographics. Almost half (40.79%) reported that their responses may change if the prognosis were extended, typically for less sedation with a longer prognosis.
Conclusions Increasing levels of sedation are less acceptable, although there is significant variation in views. Palliative care patients are likely to indicate preferences regarding their acceptability of sedation. Palliative physicians must explore preferences on an individualised basis.
- Pain
- Quality of life
- Symptoms and symptom management
- Terminal care
Footnotes
Contributors JB and SF designed the study. JB, SF, RP and CP recruited patients. PT analysed and reported the data. The final manuscript was written by JB, SF, PT, RP and CP, with all authors contributing to the revision of the submitted version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.