Practice and challenges for organ donation after medical assistance in dying: A scoping review including the results of the first international roundtable in 2021.

The procedure combining medical assistance in dying (MAiD) with donations after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) is known as organ donation after euthanasia (ODE). The first international roundtable on ODE was held during the 2021 WONCA family medicine conference as part of a scoping review. It aimed to document practice and related issues to advise patients, professionals, and policymakers, aiding the development of responsible guidelines and helping to navigate the issues. This was achieved through literature searches and national and international stakeholder meetings. Up to 2021, ODE was performed 286 times in Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium, including eight cases of ODE from home (ODEH). MAiD was provided 17,217 times (2020) in the eight countries where ODE is permitted. As of 2021, 837 patients (up to 14% of recipients of DCDD donors) had received organs from ODE. ODE raises some important ethical concerns involving patient autonomy, the link between the request for MAiD and the request to donate organs and the increased burden placed on seriously ill MAiD patients.

A framework for critical care triage during a major surge in critical illness.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions experienced surges in demand for critical care that strained or overwhelmed their healthcare system's ability to respond. A major surge necessitates a deviation from usual practices, including difficult decisions about how to allocate critical care resources. We present a framework to guide these decisions in the hope of saving the most lives as ethically as possible, while concurrently respecting, protecting, and fulfilling legal and human rights obligations. It was developed in Ontario in 2020-2021 through an iterative consultation process with diverse participants, but was adopted in other jurisdictions with some modifications. The framework features three levels of triage depending on the degree of the surge, and a system for prioritizing patients based on their short-term mortality risk following the onset of critical illness. It also includes processes aimed at promoting consistency and fairness across a region where many hospitals are expected to apply the same framework. No triage framework should ever be considered "final," and there is a need for further research to examine ethical issues related to critical care triage and to increase the extent and quality of evidence to inform critical care triage.

RéSUMé: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, de nombreuses régions ont connu une augmentation de la demande de soins intensifs qui a mis à rude épreuve ou dépassé la capacité de réponse du système de santé existant. Lors de toute augmentation importante de cette demande, un écart par rapport aux pratiques habituelles est nécessaire, y compris la prise de décisions difficiles sur la façon d'allouer les ressources en soins intensifs. Nous présentons un algorithme pour guider ces décisions dans l'espoir de sauver le plus de vies possibles et ce, de la manière la plus éthique possible, tout en respectant, en protégeant et en remplissant les obligations légales et en matière de droits de l'homme. Cet algorithme a été élaboré en Ontario en 2020-2021 dans le cadre d'un processus de consultation itératif avec divers participants, mais a été adopté dans d'autres juridictions avec quelques modifications. L'algorithme comprend trois niveaux de triage en fonction du degré d'augmentation de la demande, ainsi qu'un système permettant de prioriser les patients en fonction de leur risque de mortalité à court terme après l'apparition d'une maladie grave. Il comporte également des processus visant à promouvoir l'uniformité et l'équité dans une région où de nombreux hôpitaux vont appliquer le même algorithme. Aucun algorithme de triage ne devrait jamais être considéré comme « définitif ¼, et il est nécessaire d'approfondir les recherches pour examiner les questions éthiques liées au triage aux soins intensifs et accroître l'étendue et la qualité des données probantes afin d'éclairer le triage aux soins intensifs.

Association between supportive interventions and healthcare utilization and outcomes in patients on long-term prescribed opioid therapy presenting to acute healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-term prescription of opioids by healthcare professionals has been linked to poor individual patient outcomes and high resource utilization. Supportive strategies in this population regarding acute healthcare settings may have substantial impact. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies. The studies were included according to the following criteria: 1) age 18 and older; 2) long-term prescribed opioid therapy; 3) acute healthcare setting presentation from a complication of opioid therapy; 4) evaluating a supportive strategy; 5) comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; 6) addressing patient or healthcare related outcomes. We performed a qualitative analysis of supportive strategies identified. We pooled patient and system related outcome data for each supportive strategy. RESULTS: A total of 5664 studies were screened and 19 studies were included. A total of 9 broad categories of supportive strategies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for the "supports for patients in pain" supportive strategy on two system-related outcomes using a ratio of means. The number of emergency department (ED) visits were significantly reduced for cohort studies (n = 6, 0.36, 95% CI [0.20-0.62], I2 = 87%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3, 0.71, 95% CI [0.61-0.82], I2 = 0%). The number of opioid prescriptions at ED discharge was significantly reduced for RCTs (n = 3, 0.34, 95% CI [0.14-0.82], I2 = 78%). CONCLUSION: For patients presenting to acute healthcare settings with complications related to long-term opioid therapy, the intervention with the most robust data is "supports for patients in pain".

Palliative Medicine-Becoming a Subspecialty of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

The discipline of palliative medicine in Canada started in 1975 with the coining of the term "palliative care." Shortly thereafter, the provision of clinical palliative medicine services started, although the education of the discipline lagged behind. In 1993, the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) started to explore the option of creating an accredited training program in palliative medicine. This article outlines the process by which, over the course of 20 years, palliative medicine training in Canada went from a mission statement of the CSPCP, to a 1 year of added competence jointly accredited by both the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Royal College) and the College of Family Physicians of Canada, to a 2-year subspecialty of the Royal College with access from multiple entry routes and a formalized accrediting examination.

Physician continuity of care in the last year of life in community-dwelling adults: retrospective population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the timing of involvement of various physician specialties over the last year of life across different levels of primary care physician continuity for differing causes of death. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults who died in Ontario, Canada, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018, using linked population level health administrative data. Outcomes were median days between death and first and last outpatient palliative care specialist encounter, last outpatient encounter with other specialists and with the usual primary care physician. These were calculated by tertile of score on the Usual Provider Continuity Index, defined as the proportion of outpatient physician encounters with the patient's primary care physician. RESULTS: Patients' (n=395 839) mean age at death was 76 years. With increasing category of usual primary care physician continuity, a larger proportion were palliative care generalists, palliative care specialist involvement decreased in duration and was concentrated closer to death, the primary care physician was involved closer to death, and other specialist physicians ceased involvement earlier. For patients with cancer, palliative care specialist involvement was longer than for other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients with lower continuity, those with higher usual provider continuity were more likely to have a primary care physician involved closer to death providing generalist palliative care.

Critical Care Staffing in Pandemics and Disasters: A Consensus Report From a Subcommittee of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care - Systems Strategies to Sustain the Health Care Workforce.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented mental health disturbances, burnout, and moral distress among health care workers, affecting their ability to care for themselves and their patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: In health care workers, what are key systemic factors and interventions impacting mental health and burnout? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Workforce Sustainment subcommittee of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) utilized a consensus development process, incorporating evidence from literature review with expert opinion through a modified Delphi approach to determine factors affecting mental health, burnout, and moral distress in health care workers, to propose necessary actions to help prevent these issues and enhance workforce resilience, sustainment, and retention. RESULTS: Consolidation of evidence gathered from literature review and expert opinion resulted in 197 total statements that were synthesized into 14 major suggestions. These suggestions were organized into three categories: (1) mental health and well-being for staff in medical settings; (2) system-level support and leadership; and (3) research priorities and gaps. Suggestions include both general and specific occupational interventions to support health care worker basic physical needs, lower psychological distress, reduce moral distress and burnout, and foster mental health and resilience. INTERPRETATION: The Workforce Sustainment subcommittee of the TFMCC offers evidence-informed operational strategies to assist health care workers and hospitals plan, prevent, and treat the factors affecting health care worker mental health, burnout, and moral distress to improve resilience and retention following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS: A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

Triage of Scarce Critical Care Resources in COVID-19 An Implementation Guide for Regional Allocation: An Expert Panel Report of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians.

Public health emergencies have the potential to place enormous strain on health systems. The current pandemic of the novel 2019 coronavirus disease has required hospitals in numerous countries to expand their surge capacity to meet the needs of patients with critical illness. When even surge capacity is exceeded, however, principles of critical care triage may be needed as a means to allocate scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilators or key medications. The goal of a triage system is to direct limited resources towards patients most likely to benefit from them. Implementing a triage system requires careful coordination between clinicians, health systems, local and regional governments, and the public, with a goal of transparency to maintain trust. We discuss the principles of tertiary triage and methods for implementing such a system, emphasizing that these systems should serve only as a last resort. Even under triage, we must uphold our obligation to care for all patients as best possible under difficult circumstances.

The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.