The decision-making process for sedation in specialist palliative care: a qualitative interview study with team members, relatives, and patients

The 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)). Qualitative 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. Findings 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. This 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Palliative Care
Published
2026-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-026-02029-9
Primary Topic
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The decision-making process for sedation in specialist palliative care: a qualitative interview study with team members, relatives, and patients

Claudia Bozzaro, Violet Handtke, Jeremias Bazata, Sophie Meesters et al.
BMC Palliative Care
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
article

The decision-making process for sedation in specialist palliative care: a qualitative interview study with team members, relatives, and patients

Claudia Bozzaro, Violet Handtke, Jeremias Bazata, Sophie Meesters, Jan Schildmann, Eva Katharina Schildmann, Carsten Klein, Christoph Ostgathe, Claudia Bausewein, SedPall Study Group
article en

Abstract

The 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)). Qualitative 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. Findings 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. This 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.

BMC Palliative Care
Technische Hochschule Augsburg (DE), University of Augsburg (DE), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE), Wittenberg University (US), University of Münster (DE), LMU Klinikum (DE), Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (DE), Institute of Medical Ethics (GB), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen (DE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.