Joseph Burdon, Samuel Fingas, Rachel Parry, Constantina Pitsillides, Paul Taylor
{"title":"Sedation from analgesics: patient preference survey.","authors":"Joseph Burdon, Samuel Fingas, Rachel Parry, Constantina Pitsillides, Paul Taylor","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2023-004759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the extent to which palliative patients would accept sedation as a side effect of analgesia and to identify factors affecting decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"262-265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004759","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance.
We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication.
In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.