Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026
Hospice Clinicians' Approaches to Terminal Restlessness: A Qualitative Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jan Andy, Turnwald Molly, Maixner Susan, O'Neil Thomas, Gerlach Lauren
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Terminal restlessness is frequently observed in hospice, yet it lacks a consistent definition, diagnostic framework, and treatment approach. This ambiguity complicates care by increasing caregiver distress, delaying diagnosis, and creating uncertainty around appropriate treatment.
OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study explored how hospice clinicians define, diagnose, and pharmacologically manage terminal restlessness in practice.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospice clinicians from diverse settings across Michigan. Participants were asked how they define terminal restlessness, distinguish it from other end-of-life conditions, and approach its treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Eighteen hospice clinicians with backgrounds in family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, psychiatry, and neurology participated, with a mean of 10 years' hospice experience. Most practiced in home- or facility-based settings. Five themes emerged: 1) Diagnostic challenge-clinicians reported difficulty distinguishing terminal restlessness from delirium, pain, or medication side effects; 2) Common symptom profile-agitation, confusion, hallucinations, and constant movement; 3) Temporal association with active dying process-terminal restlessness was viewed as a sign of imminent death; 4) Ruling out reversible causes-pain, urinary retention, or other modifiable factors; and 5) Treatment variability-approaches varied, though most clinicians were more comfortable using sedating medications once death was perceived to be imminent.
CONCLUSION: Hospice clinicians encounter uncertainty when diagnosing and managing terminal restlessness. Although common symptom patterns and care considerations were shared, variability in clinical approach and lack of standardized treatment were prominent. Additional research is needed to further characterize the syndrome, refine diagnostic criteria, and identify treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study explored how hospice clinicians define, diagnose, and pharmacologically manage terminal restlessness in practice.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospice clinicians from diverse settings across Michigan. Participants were asked how they define terminal restlessness, distinguish it from other end-of-life conditions, and approach its treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Eighteen hospice clinicians with backgrounds in family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, psychiatry, and neurology participated, with a mean of 10 years' hospice experience. Most practiced in home- or facility-based settings. Five themes emerged: 1) Diagnostic challenge-clinicians reported difficulty distinguishing terminal restlessness from delirium, pain, or medication side effects; 2) Common symptom profile-agitation, confusion, hallucinations, and constant movement; 3) Temporal association with active dying process-terminal restlessness was viewed as a sign of imminent death; 4) Ruling out reversible causes-pain, urinary retention, or other modifiable factors; and 5) Treatment variability-approaches varied, though most clinicians were more comfortable using sedating medications once death was perceived to be imminent.
CONCLUSION: Hospice clinicians encounter uncertainty when diagnosing and managing terminal restlessness. Although common symptom patterns and care considerations were shared, variability in clinical approach and lack of standardized treatment were prominent. Additional research is needed to further characterize the syndrome, refine diagnostic criteria, and identify treatment strategies.