Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on the Communication Challenges When Discussing Palliative Sedation: A Qualitative Study Across Eight European Countries.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Éva Pozsgai, Csilla Busa, Holger Brunsch, Michael Van der Elst, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Ian Koper, Jeroen Hasselaar, Rocio Roji, Claudio Adile, Daniela Mosoiu, Camelia Ancuta, Ágnes Csikós
{"title":"Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on the Communication Challenges When Discussing Palliative Sedation: A Qualitative Study Across Eight European Countries.","authors":"Éva Pozsgai, Csilla Busa, Holger Brunsch, Michael Van der Elst, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Ian Koper, Jeroen Hasselaar, Rocio Roji, Claudio Adile, Daniela Mosoiu, Camelia Ancuta, Ágnes Csikós","doi":"10.3390/jcm14186653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Studies have shown that healthcare providers struggle to discuss difficult end-of-life issues, including palliative sedation (PS), with patients and relatives. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate communication challenges related to PS among healthcare providers in eight European countries. <b>Methods:</b> In each country, two clinical settings providing palliative care were selected. Two moral case deliberation (MCD) sessions were conducted, each with 3 to 9 palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs). They discussed patient cases involving PS and refractory symptom management. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using a framework analysis. <b>Results:</b> Key issues included core communication values-open, empathetic, and honest dialogue-which were consistent across countries but varied in practice. In The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, and the UK, communication prioritized patient autonomy through timely discussions and family dialogue. In Spain and Italy, family-centered communication approaches predominated, while in Romania and Hungary, tendencies for selective disclosure were also evident, along with delegated decision-making and complex family dynamics. Certain challenges reflected professional experience rather than national culture. Nurses mediated across contexts, while terminology surrounding palliative sedation remained a source of ambiguity. <b>Conclusions:</b> This is the first study to present HCPs' perceptions of communication issues related to PS across Europe. Despite variations between settings, consistently open dialogue among patients, families, and HCPs emerged as the most valued element. These findings highlight the need to better understand how end-of-life communication about PS varies in practice and underscore the importance of considering healthcare providers' real-world experiences to improve communication with patients and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12470492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Studies have shown that healthcare providers struggle to discuss difficult end-of-life issues, including palliative sedation (PS), with patients and relatives. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate communication challenges related to PS among healthcare providers in eight European countries. Methods: In each country, two clinical settings providing palliative care were selected. Two moral case deliberation (MCD) sessions were conducted, each with 3 to 9 palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs). They discussed patient cases involving PS and refractory symptom management. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using a framework analysis. Results: Key issues included core communication values-open, empathetic, and honest dialogue-which were consistent across countries but varied in practice. In The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, and the UK, communication prioritized patient autonomy through timely discussions and family dialogue. In Spain and Italy, family-centered communication approaches predominated, while in Romania and Hungary, tendencies for selective disclosure were also evident, along with delegated decision-making and complex family dynamics. Certain challenges reflected professional experience rather than national culture. Nurses mediated across contexts, while terminology surrounding palliative sedation remained a source of ambiguity. Conclusions: This is the first study to present HCPs' perceptions of communication issues related to PS across Europe. Despite variations between settings, consistently open dialogue among patients, families, and HCPs emerged as the most valued element. These findings highlight the need to better understand how end-of-life communication about PS varies in practice and underscore the importance of considering healthcare providers' real-world experiences to improve communication with patients and families.

在讨论姑息性镇静时,医疗保健提供者对沟通挑战的看法:一项横跨八个欧洲国家的定性研究。
背景/目的:研究表明,医疗保健提供者努力与患者和亲属讨论困难的临终问题,包括姑息性镇静(PS)。本定性研究旨在评估八个欧洲国家医疗保健提供者之间与PS相关的沟通挑战。方法:在每个国家,选择两个提供姑息治疗的临床机构。进行了两次道德案例审议(MCD)会议,每次会议有3至9名姑息医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)。他们讨论了涉及PS和难治性症状管理的患者病例。会议录音,转录,匿名,并使用框架分析进行分析。结果:关键问题包括核心沟通价值观——开放、共情和诚实的对话——这些价值观在各国是一致的,但在实践中有所不同。在荷兰、德国、比利时和英国,通过及时讨论和家庭对话,沟通优先考虑患者的自主权。在西班牙和意大利,以家庭为中心的沟通方式占主导地位,而在罗马尼亚和匈牙利,选择性披露的趋势也很明显,同时还有委托决策和复杂的家庭动态。某些挑战反映的是专业经验,而不是国家文化。护士在不同情况下进行调解,而围绕姑息性镇静的术语仍然是歧义的来源。结论:这是第一个在整个欧洲展示医护人员对与PS相关的沟通问题的看法的研究。尽管环境之间存在差异,但患者、家庭和医护人员之间始终保持开放的对话是最重要的因素。这些发现强调需要更好地了解关于PS的临终沟通在实践中是如何变化的,并强调了考虑医疗服务提供者的现实经验以改善与患者和家属沟通的重要性。
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
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
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