The complexity of nurses' attitudes and practice of sedation at the end of life : a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Sedation is administered to some palliative care patients at the end of their life. Nurses play an important role in this practice. Objectives To systematically review the evidence on nurses' attitudes and practice of end-of-life sedation. Methods We searched eight electronic databases, four key palliative care journals, and reference lists for empirical studies published in English, between 1990 and 2012, on nurses and their attitudes toward and practice of sedation until a patient's death. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results Data were generated from 7515 nurses in four main settings (specialized palliative care unit, home, nursing home, and acute hospital) from seven countries (Belgium, Canada, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, U.K., and U.S.). On average, the quality of the evidence was good; hence, we analyzed all selected studies. Based on the findings from a previous review, we categorized the emerging themes into: 1) important factors leading to the patient receiving palliative sedation (PS), 2) nurses' attitudes toward PS, and 3) nurses' experience of PS at the end of a patient's life. In general, nurses had a positive but cautious attitude toward the practice of PS. Most saw it as a last resort treatment for relieving suffering and refractory symptoms, and its practice was often influenced by their level of education, expertise, and the roles they played per setting. Conclusion Most nurses administered sedation until death only within the given circumstances because of the anticipatory benefits in controlling refractory symptoms and suffering. Some of them experienced burdens during PS delivery; these could be supported by operational guidelines and task-related training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".