The development of a core outcome set for evaluating and enhancing palliative sedation in clinical research and practice: The COSEDATION study protocol.

IF 2.7 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative Care and Social Practice Pub Date : 2025-07-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26323524251340706
Lenzo Robijn, Indra Albrecht, Joni Gilissen, Peter Pype, Jeroen Hasselaar, Luc Deliens, Kenneth Chambaere
{"title":"The development of a core outcome set for evaluating and enhancing palliative sedation in clinical research and practice: The COSEDATION study protocol.","authors":"Lenzo Robijn, Indra Albrecht, Joni Gilissen, Peter Pype, Jeroen Hasselaar, Luc Deliens, Kenneth Chambaere","doi":"10.1177/26323524251340706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The practice of palliative sedation (PS) in end-of-life care has generated significant debate due to concerns about improper application and communication issues. Previous efforts to assess and enhance the practice have often focused on single outcomes, resulting in incomplete evaluations. There is currently no consensus on the core outcomes needed to assess PS effectively.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for PS in end-of-life care to enable comprehensive evaluation and improve clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The study follows the four-stage Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative approach to develop the set of core outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>First, we will conduct a scoping review to identify potentially relevant outcomes reported in existing peer-reviewed and gray literature. Second, we will employ qualitative methods to explore outcomes valued by patients, their proxies, and healthcare professionals. Third, experts, including researchers, healthcare providers and bereaved relatives, and patient advocates will assess the importance of these outcomes through a Delphi study. Finally, a consensus meeting with stakeholder representatives will refine the COS. Concurrently, measurement instruments for these core outcomes will be identified.</p><p><strong>Ethics: </strong>Ethical clearance was obtained by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee for the whole study (ONZ-2023-0050).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study is crucial for establishing a gold-standard measurement instrument to evaluate the multifaceted practice of PS in all its complexity. Providing a standardized set of outcomes will facilitate the design and evaluation of clinical trials, support effective quality improvement initiatives, and inform evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. Engaging all key stakeholders, including dying persons and their families, significantly improving patient care. Furthermore, internationally validated, clinically relevant endpoints will further strengthen research impact and promote consistent, high-quality PS practices worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":36693,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","volume":"19 ","pages":"26323524251340706"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12255856/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26323524251340706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The practice of palliative sedation (PS) in end-of-life care has generated significant debate due to concerns about improper application and communication issues. Previous efforts to assess and enhance the practice have often focused on single outcomes, resulting in incomplete evaluations. There is currently no consensus on the core outcomes needed to assess PS effectively.

Aim: This study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for PS in end-of-life care to enable comprehensive evaluation and improve clinical practice.

Design: The study follows the four-stage Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative approach to develop the set of core outcomes.

Methods and analysis: First, we will conduct a scoping review to identify potentially relevant outcomes reported in existing peer-reviewed and gray literature. Second, we will employ qualitative methods to explore outcomes valued by patients, their proxies, and healthcare professionals. Third, experts, including researchers, healthcare providers and bereaved relatives, and patient advocates will assess the importance of these outcomes through a Delphi study. Finally, a consensus meeting with stakeholder representatives will refine the COS. Concurrently, measurement instruments for these core outcomes will be identified.

Ethics: Ethical clearance was obtained by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee for the whole study (ONZ-2023-0050).

Discussion: This study is crucial for establishing a gold-standard measurement instrument to evaluate the multifaceted practice of PS in all its complexity. Providing a standardized set of outcomes will facilitate the design and evaluation of clinical trials, support effective quality improvement initiatives, and inform evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. Engaging all key stakeholders, including dying persons and their families, significantly improving patient care. Furthermore, internationally validated, clinically relevant endpoints will further strengthen research impact and promote consistent, high-quality PS practices worldwide.

在临床研究和实践中评估和加强姑息性镇静的核心结果集的发展:COSEDATION研究方案。
背景:临终关怀中姑息性镇静(PS)的实践由于担心不当的应用和沟通问题而引起了重大的争论。以前评估和加强实践的努力往往集中在单一的结果上,导致评估不完整。目前对于有效评估PS所需的核心成果没有达成共识。目的:本研究旨在建立临终关怀中PS的核心结果集(COS),以便全面评估和改进临床实践。设计:本研究遵循四阶段有效性试验核心结果测量(COMET)倡议方法来开发一套核心结果。方法和分析:首先,我们将进行范围审查,以确定现有同行评议文献和灰色文献中报告的潜在相关结果。其次,我们将采用定性方法来探索患者、其代理人和医疗保健专业人员所重视的结果。第三,专家,包括研究人员,医疗保健提供者和死者亲属,以及患者倡导者将通过德尔菲研究评估这些结果的重要性。最后,与利益相关者代表的共识会议将完善COS。同时,将确定这些核心成果的衡量工具。伦理:整个研究已获得根特大学医院伦理委员会的伦理许可(ONZ-2023-0050)。讨论:本研究对于建立一个金标准测量工具来评估PS的多方面实践及其复杂性至关重要。提供一组标准化的结果将促进临床试验的设计和评估,支持有效的质量改进举措,并为医疗保健中的循证决策提供信息。让包括临终者及其家属在内的所有关键利益攸关方参与进来,显著改善患者护理。此外,国际验证的临床相关终点将进一步加强研究影响,并促进全球一致的高质量PS实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Palliative Care and Social Practice
Palliative Care and Social Practice Nursing-Advanced and Specialized Nursing
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信