The issue of symptom management at the end of life and the need to use sedation has become a controversial topic. This debate has been intensified by the suggestion that sedation may correlate with 'slow euthanasia'. The need to have more facts and less anecdote was a motivating factor in this multicentre study. Four palliative care programmes in Israel, South Africa, and Spain agreed to participate. The target population was palliative care patients in an inpatient setting. Information was collected on demographics, major symptom distress, and intent and need to use sedatives in the last week of life. Further data on level of consciousness, adequacy of symptom control, and opioids and psychotropic agents used during the final week of life was recorded. As the final week of life can be difficult to predict, treating physicians were asked to complete the data at the time of death. The data available for analysis included 100 patients each from Israel and Madrid, 94 patients from Durban, and 93 patients from Cape Town. More than 90% of patients required medical management for pain, dyspnoea, delirium and/or nausea in the final week of life. The intent to sedate varied from 15% to 36%, with delirium being the most common problem requiring sedation. There were variations in the need to sedate patients for dyspnoea, and existential and family distress. Midazolam was the most common medication prescribed to achieve sedation. The diversity in symptom distress, intent to sedate and use of sedatives, provides further knowledge in characterizing and describing the use of deliberate pharmacological sedation for problematic symptoms at the end of life. The international nature of the patient population studied enhances our understanding of potential differences in definition of symptom issues, variation of clinical practice, and cultural and psychosocial influences.

The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and types of antibiotics prescribed in the last week of life in three different palliative care settings, including an acute care hospital, tertiary palliative care unit, and three hospice units. A total of 150 consecutive patients were evaluated, 50 in each of the three settings. Twenty-nine patients (58%) in the acute hospital setting, 26 (52%) in the tertiary palliative care unit, and 11(22%) in the hospice settings were prescribed antibiotics. In the acute care and tertiary palliative care settings, the most frequent route of antibiotic administration was intravenous and, in the hospice setting, oral. We conclude that there is marked variability in the numbers and types of antibiotics prescribed in these different palliative care settings in the last week of life. The high use of intravenous antibiotics and the large number of patients who were still receiving antibiotics at the time of death indicate the need for further prospective studies.

The PaP was successfully validated in a population with characteristics that extend beyond those of the population in which it was originally developed. This is the largest sample in which the PaP has been validated to date.

The management of parenteral hydration at the end of life remains controversial. The debate centers on whether and/or how often patients should be hydrated, the volume of hydration received, and the benefit verses side effects of parenteral hydration. In order to clarify the routine practice of physicians involved in the end-of-life care in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, we investigated the routine management of hydration by attending physicians caring for patients dying in a palliative care unit (PCU) at Norwood Capital Care, and in acute care wards at the Royal Alexandra Hospital (RAH) both while receiving and while not receiving consult advice from the Palliative Care Program. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 50 consecutive patients who died in each of the 3 sites included in the study. Data from the last 7 days prior to and including the date of death (day 0) was recorded. The majority of patients at all sites received hydration. The volume of hydration ordered in the Norwood PCU site was significantly different compared to both RAH groups on all days studied (p < 0.005). The RAH palliative care group showed a trend for lower hydration volumes compared to the RAH acute care group with significant differences on days 1 and 2 (p < 0.05). Throughout the week, for all of the hydrated patients in the Norwood PCU site, hypodermoclysis (HDC) was ordered; for nearly all of the hydrated patients in the RAH acute care group, intravenous (IV) hydration was ordered; and for approximately one third of the hydrated RAH palliative care consult group HDC was ordered, and for the remainder IV hydration was ordered. The RAH acute care group represented the largest percentage of hydrated patients receiving diuretics while the Norwood hospice site represented the lowest. The data raise the possibility that more patients in the RAH acute care group were overhydrated and may have developed symptoms such as edema, ascites, and respiratory distress. This study suggests that hydration at the end of life is managed differently in different settings of care and highlights areas for education to improve management.

A previous multicentre international study on sedation at the end of life has detected major differences between Canadian and Spanish patients. This was particularly evident in the need to sedate Spanish patients for psychological/existential distress. This study was designed to explore the hypothesis that marked differences in the value patients and families attach to disclosure and cognition were a factor. The study population included patients referred to two palliative care consulting services based in acute care hospitals in Madrid, Spain (M), and in Edmonton, Canada (E). Questions addressed the issue of clear thinking, pain/nausea-medication-induced somnolence/confusion, anxiety/antidepressant-medication-induced somnolence/confusion, details of diagnosis. One hundred patients were evaluated on each site. Patients and families in E placed a higher value on clear thinking, change in medication causing somnolence/confusion, and wanting full disclosure. Patients and families in E agreed almost 100% of the time, while agreement in M varied from 42% to 67%. These results suggest major differences in the perceived value of clear cognition and disclosure of information between patients and families in E and M. The lack of agreement between patients and families in M is a further significant factor that may complicate communication with patients and families, as well as medical management.