ArticleBMC palliative care2026
The decision-making process for sedation in specialist palliative care: a qualitative interview study with team members, relatives, and patients.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe decision-making process for sedation in palliative care remains under-researched, with evidence of limited involvement of patients and their relatives despite guidelines. The aim of this study was to explore the decision-making process for sedation in specialist palliative care in Germany, including all types of sedation (light to deep, temporary or continuous (until death)).
methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews with 26 physicians, 22 nurses, eleven other members of the multiprofessional care team, eight relatives, and six patients. Recruitment took place via contact person in ten palliative care units and seven specialist palliative home care services in Germany. We analysed the transcripts by Framework Analysis and applied the shared treatment decision-making model by Charles et al.
resultsFindings could be assigned to the adapted 5-phase decision-making process: (1) In the initiation phase, preemptive discussions were typically limited to patients with chronic diseases or potential catastrophic events, with some physicians avoiding early discussions due to fears of pressure. (2) During information exchange, the amount of detail varied by sedation type, with often only little information given for mild forms. (3) In the deliberation phase, informed consent was more common for deep sedation, and some team members criticized inadequate documentation of consent. (4) Decisions to start sedation were usually collaborative, though challenges arose when there was no defined starting point for deep sedation. (5) Re-evaluation was partly described to be challenging due to concerns about reintroducing suffering if sedation was reduced.
conclusionsThis study highlights the processual nature of the decision-making process for sedation in palliative care and proposes re-evaluation as a fifth phase. It underscores the importance of early communication, addressing professionals’ concern, and supporting shared decision-making throughout all phases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.