↓ Skip to main content

The impact of the inpatient practice of continuous deep sedation until death on healthcare professionals’ emotional well-being: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
The impact of the inpatient practice of continuous deep sedation until death on healthcare professionals’ emotional well-being: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12904-017-0205-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Ziegler, Hannes Merker, Margareta Schmid, Milo A. Puhan

Abstract

The practice of continuous deep sedation is a challenging clinical intervention with demanding clinical and ethical decision-making. Though current research indicates that healthcare professionals' involvement in such decisions is associated with emotional stress, little is known about sedation-related emotional burden. This study aims to systematically review the evidence on the impact of the inpatient practice of continuous deep sedation until death on healthcare professionals' emotional well-being. A systematic review of literature published between January 1990 and October 2016 was performed following a predefined protocol. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched using search terms within "end-of-life care", "sedation", and "emotional well-being". Dissertations and reference lists were screened by hand. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We abstracted measures of psychological outcomes, which were related to the practice of continuous deep sedation until death, including emotional well-being, stress and exhaustion. We used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. Three studies remained out of 528 publications identified. A total of 3'900 healthcare professionals (82% nurses, 18% physicians) from Japan (n = 3384) and the Netherlands (n = 16) were included. The prevalence of sedation-related burden in nurses varied from 11 to 26%, depending on outcome measure. Physicians showed medium levels of emotional exhaustion and low levels of depersonalization. Common clinical concerns contributing to professionals' burden were diagnosing refractory symptoms and sedation in the context of possibly life-shortening decisions. Non-clinical challenges included conflicting wishes between patients and families, disagreements within the care team, and insufficient professionals' skills and coping. Due to the limited results and heterogeneity in outcome measure, the GRADE ratings for the quality of evidence were low. Current evidence does not suggest that practicing continuous deep sedation is generally associated with lower emotional well-being of healthcare professionals. Higher emotional burden seems more likely when professionals struggled with clinical and ethical justifications for continuous deep sedation. This appeared to be in part a function of clinical experience. Further research is needed to strengthen this evidence, as it is likely that additional studies will change the current evidence base.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 48 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 21%
Psychology 11 8%
Unspecified 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 50 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,275,245
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#247
of 1,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,011
of 310,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.