Background: Dignity therapy is psychotherapy to relieve psychological and existential distress in patients at the end of life. Little is known about its effect. Aim: To analyse the outcomes of dignity therapy in patients with advanced life-threatening diseases. Design: Systematic review was conducted. Three authors extracted data of the articles and evaluated quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data were synthesized, considering study objectives. Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO. The years searched were 2002 (year of dignity therapy development) to January 2016. ‘Dignity therapy’ was used as search term. Studies with patients with advanced life-threatening diseases were included. Results: Of 121 studies, 28 were included. Quality of studies is high. Results were grouped into effectiveness, satisfaction, suitability and feasibility, and adaptability to different diseases and cultures. Two of five randomized control trials applied dignity therapy to patients with high levels of baseline psychological distress. One showed statistically significant decrease on patients’ anxiety and depression scores over time. The other showed statistical decrease on anxiety scores pre–post dignity therapy, not on depression. Nonrandomized studies suggested statistically significant improvements in existential and psychosocial measurements. Patients, relatives and professionals perceived it improved end-of-life experience. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that dignity therapy is beneficial. One randomized controlled trial with patients with high levels of psychological distress shows DT efficacy in anxiety and depression scores. Other design studies report beneficial outcomes in terms of end-of-life experience. Further research should understand how dignity therapy functions to establish a means for measuring its impact and assessing whether high level of distress patients can benefit most from this therapy.

Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed. To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies. Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed. Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort. Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.

Background: Coping is essential to manage palliative care professionals’ challenges. The focus has been on the effects of coping mechanism; however, little is known about coping itself in palliative care. Aim: To synthesise evidence of coping strategies in palliative care professionals, and how different strategies play roles over time. Design: Systematically conducted integrative review. Data sources: PubMed; CINAHL; Medline; PsycINFO and B-ON were searched (1996–2021) combining ‘coping’ AND ‘palliative care’. A predefined data extraction sheet was developed to report data. Two researchers performed constant comparative analysis using Nvivo^®. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Four main strategies with recurrent reference to time were found: (a) proactive coping, involving activities to achieve self-confidence and control situations and emotions; (b) self-care based coping, including self-protection and self-awareness activities, with behavioural disconnection; (c) self-transformation coping, involving activities to accept limits; and (d) encountering deep professional meaning, is a coping mechanism based on meaning, frequently considering the deepest meaning of work. The dynamic and influencing factors were training, team interaction, professional motivation and family. They were usually protective factors, though sometimes they represented risk factors. The emotional burden associated with healthcare and systemic stressors were always risk factors. An explanatory model describes a complex and dynamic process, in which everyday strategies and more introspective strategies are combined. Conclusions: The model showed a process of adaptation and learning to persevere in palliative care. It changes over time under factors and strategies, and evolves in a personal and professional transformation, parallel to the working life. It would be worth assessing coping in healthcare professionals who chose to leave palliative care and to investigate the reasons they did so and their coping mechanisms.

Background: Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed. Aim: To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured. Design: Integrative review of most recent empirical research. Data sources: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010–2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness. Results: Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement. Conclusions: There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.