They do their utmost: promise and limits of palliative care in two refugee camps in Rwanda, a qualitative study.

After often gruelling journeys, some refugees arrive at secure locations with severe injury or illness. Others find themselves shortly thereafter facing a life-limiting health condition. Palliative care has been the focus of recent research, and of academic and aid sector dialogue. In this study, we ask: What are experiences and needs of patients and care providers? What opportunities and obstacles exist to enhance or introduce means of reducing suffering for patients facing serious illness and injury in crisis settings? We present findings of a qualitative sub-study within a larger programme of research exploring moral and practical dimensions of palliative care in humanitarian crisis contexts. This paper presents vignettes about palliative care from refugees and care providers in two refugee camps in Rwanda, and is among the first to provide empirical evidence on first-hand experiences of individuals who have fled protracted conflict and face dying far from home. Along with narratives of their experiences, participants provided a range of recommendations from small (micro) interventions that are low cost, but high impact, through to larger (macro) changes at the systems and societal levels of benefit to policy developers and decision-makers.

Aid when 'there is nothing left to offer': Experiences of palliative care and palliative care needs in humanitarian crises.

Access to palliative care, and more specifically the alleviation of avoidable physical and psychosocial suffering is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of humanitarian response. Palliative approaches to care can meet the needs of patients for whom curative treatment may not be the aim, not just at the very end of life but alleviation of suffering more broadly. In the past several years many organizations and sectoral initiatives have taken steps to develop guidance and policies to support integration of palliative care. However, it is still regarded by many as unfeasible or aspirational in crisis contexts; particularly where care for persons with life threatening conditions or injuries is logistically, legally, and ethically challenging. This article presents a synthesis of findings from five qualitative sub-studies within a research program on palliative care provision in humanitarian crises that sought to better understand the ethical and practical dimensions of humanitarian organizations integrating palliative care into emergency responses. Our multi-disciplinary, multi-national team held 98 in-depth semi-structured interviews with people with experiences in natural disasters, refugee camps in Rwanda and Jordan, and in Ebola Treatment Centers in Guinea. Participants included patients, family members, health care workers, and other staff of humanitarian agencies. We identified four themes from descriptions of the struggles and successes of applying palliative care in humanitarian settings: justification and integration of palliative care into humanitarian response, contextualizing palliative care approaches to crisis settings, the importance of being attentive to the 'situatedness of dying', and the need for retaining a holistic approach to care. We discuss these findings in relation to the ideals embraced in palliative care and corresponding humanitarian values, concluding that palliative care in humanitarian response is essential for responding to avoidable pain and suffering in humanitarian settings.

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.

Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness. METHODS: The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before-after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1-2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one's values. RESULTS: In the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (-6.7 points, 95% CI -11.1 to -2.3, p=0.003; 0-100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (-10.0 points, 95% CI -17.3 to -2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1-5 scale; N=61). CONCLUSIONS: The Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted.

Randomised trial of a serious illness decision aid (Plan Well Guide) for patients and their substitute decision-makers to improve engagement in advance care planning.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a serious illness decision aid (Plan Well Guide) in increasing the engagement of substitute decision-makers (SDM) in advance care planning (ACP). METHODS: This trial was conducted (2017-2019) in outpatient settings in Ontario, Canada, aiming to recruit 90 dyads of patients aged 65 years and older at high risk of needing future medical decisions and their SDM. Participants were randomised to receive the intervention immediately or to a 3-month wait period. The Plan Well Guide was administered to the patient and SDM by a facilitator. Outcomes were change on the validated 17-item SDM ACP Engagement Survey (primary) and 15-item patient ACP Engagement Survey (secondary). RESULTS: Of 136 dyads approached, 58 consented and were randomised and 45 completed the study (28 immediate intervention, 17 delayed intervention). The trial was stopped early because of difficulties with enrolling and following up participants. The mean changes on the SDM ACP Engagement Survey and the patient ACP Engagement Survey favoured the first group but were not statistically significant (mean difference (MD)=+0.2 (95% CI: -0.3 to 0.6) and MD=+0.4 (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.8), respectively). In a post-hoc subgroup analysis, significant treatment effects were seen in SDMs with a lower-than-median baseline score compared with those at or above the median. CONCLUSIONS: In this statistically underpowered randomised trial, differences in SDM ACP engagement between groups were small. Further information is needed to overcome recruitment challenges and to identify people most likely to benefit from the Plan Well Guide.Trial registration number NCT03239639.

Effect of "Speak Up" educational tools to engage patients in advance care planning in outpatient healthcare settings: A prospective before-after study.

BACKGROUND: Tools for advance care planning (ACP) are advocated to help ensure patient values guide healthcare decisions. Evaluation of the effect of tools introduced to patients in clinical settings is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the Canadian Speak Up Campaign tools on engagement in advance care planning (ACP), with patients attending outpatient clinics. Patient involvement: Patients were not involved in the problem definition or solution selection in this study but members of the public were involved in development of tools. The measurement of impacts involved patients. METHODS: This was a prospective pre-post study in 15 primary care and two outpatient cancer clinics. The outcome was scores on an Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey measuring Behavior Change Process on 5-point scales and Actions (0-21-point scale) administered before and six weeks after using a tool, with reminders at two or four weeks. RESULTS: 177 of 220 patients (81%) completed the study (mean 68 years of age, 16% had cancer). Mean Behavior Change Process scores were 2.9 at baseline and 3.5 at follow-up (mean change 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.7; large effect size of 0.8). Mean Action Measure score was 3.7 at baseline and 4.8 at follow-up (mean change 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.6-1.5; small effect size of 0.2). PRACTICAL VALUE: Publicly available ACP tools may have utility in clinical settings to initiate ACP among patients. More time and motivation may be required to stimulate changes in patient behaviors related to ACP.

Addressing obstacles to the inclusion of palliative care in humanitarian health projects: a qualitative study of humanitarian health professionals' and policy makers' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Humanitarian non-governmental organizations provide assistance to communities affected by war, disaster and epidemic. A primary focus of healthcare provision by these organizations is saving lives; however, curative care will not be sufficient, appropriate, or available for some patients. In these instances, palliative care approaches to ease suffering and promote dignity are needed. Though several recent initiatives have increased the probability of palliative care being included in humanitarian healthcare response, palliative care remains minimally integrated in humanitarian health projects. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using interpretive description methodology to investigate humanitarian policy-makers' and health care professionals' experiences and perceptions of palliative care during humanitarian crises. In this article, we report on the analysis of in-depth interviews with 24 participants related to their perceptions of obstacles to providing palliative care in humanitarian crises, and opportunities for overcoming these obstacles. Among the participants, 23 had experience as humanitarian health professionals, and 12 had experience with policy development and organizational decision-making. RESULTS: Participants discussed various obstacles to the provision of palliative care in humanitarian crises. More prominent obstacles were linked to the life-saving ethos of humanitarian organizations, priority setting of scarce resources, institutional and donor funding, availability of guidance and expertise in palliative care, access to medication, and cultural specificity around death and dying. Less prominent obstacles related to continuity of care after project closure, equity, security concerns, and terminology. CONCLUSION: Opportunities exist for overcoming the obstacles to providing palliative care in humanitarian crises. Doing so is necessary to ensure that humanitarian healthcare can fulfill its objectives not only of saving lives, but also of alleviating suffering and promoting dignity of individuals who are ill or injured during a humanitarian crises, including persons who are dying or likely to die.

Exploring patient-reported barriers to advance care planning in family practice.

BACKGROUND: Although patient-centred care has become increasingly important across all medical specialties, when it comes to end of life care, research has shown that treatments ordered are not often concordant with people's expressed preferences. Patient and family engagement in Advance Care Planning (ACP) in the primary care setting could improve the concordance between patients' wishes and the healthcare received when patients cannot speak for themselves. The aim of this study was to better understand the barriers faced by older patients regarding talking to their family members and family physicians about ACP. METHODS: In this multi-site cross-sectional study, three free text questions regarding reasons patients found it difficult to discuss ACP with their families or their family physicians were part of a self-administered questionnaire about patients' knowledge of and engagement in ACP. The questionnaire, which included closed ended questions followed by three probing open ended questions, was distributed in 20 family practices across 3 provinces in Canada. The free text responses were analyzed using thematic analysis and form the basis of this paper. RESULTS: One hundred two participants provided an analyzable response to the survey when asked why they haven't talked to someone about ACP. Two hundred fifty-four answered the question about talking to their physician and 340 answered the question about talking to family members. Eight distinct themes emerged from the free text response analysis: 1. They were too young for ACP; 2. The topic is too emotional; 3. The Medical Doctor (MD) should be responsible for bringing up ACP 4. A fear of negatively impacting the patient-physician relationship; 5. Not enough time in appointments; 6. Concern about family dynamics; 7. It's not a priority; and 8. A lack of knowledge about ACP. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in our sample described many barriers to ACP discussions, including concerns about the effect these discussions may have on relationships with both family members and family physicians, and issues relating to patients' knowledge and interpretation of the importance, responsibility for, or relevance of ACP itself. Family physicians may be uniquely placed to leverage the longitudinal, person- centred relationship they have with patients to mitigate some of these barriers.

Effect of an Interactive Website to Engage Patients in Advance Care Planning in Outpatient Settings.

PURPOSE: Online programs may help to engage patients in advance care planning in outpatient settings. We sought to implement an online advance care planning program, PREPARE (Prepare for Your Care; http://www.prepareforyourcare.org), at home and evaluate the changes in advance care planning engagement among patients attending outpatient clinics. METHODS: We undertook a prospective before-and-after study in 15 primary care clinics and 2 outpatient cancer centers in Canada. Patients were aged 50 years or older (primary care) or 18 years or older (cancer care) and free of cognitive impairment. They used the PREPARE website over 6 weeks, with reminders sent at 2 or 4 weeks. We used the 55-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey, which measures behavior change processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, readiness) on 5-point scales and actions relating to substitute decision makers, quality of life, flexibility for the decision maker, and asking doctors questions on an overall scale from 0 to 21; higher scores indicate greater engagement. RESULTS: In total, 315 patients were screened and 172 enrolled, of whom 75% completed the study (mean age = 65.6 years, 51% female, 35% had cancer). The mean behavior change process score was 2.9 (SD 0.8) at baseline and 3.5 (SD 0.8) at follow-up (mean change = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.49-0.73); the mean action measure score was 4.0 (SD 4.9) at baseline and 5.2 (SD 5.4) at follow-up (mean change = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77). The effect size was moderate (0.75) for the former and small (0.23) for the latter. Findings were similar in both primary care and cancer care populations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the online PREPARE program in primary care and cancer care clinics increased advance care planning engagement among patients.

Primary care clinicians' confidence, willingness participation and perceptions of roles in advance care planning discussions with patients: a multi-site survey.

BACKGROUND: People who engage in advance care planning (ACP) are more likely to receive health care that is concordant with their goals at the end of life. Little discussion of ACP occurs in primary care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe primary care clinicians' perspectives on having ACP conversations with their patients. METHODS: We conducted a survey of family physicians and non-physician clinicians in primary care in 2014-2015. We compared family physicians and non-physician clinicians on willingness, confidence, participation and acceptability for other clinicians to engage in six aspects of ACP (initiating, exchanging information, decision coaching, finalizing plans, helping communicate plans with family members and other health professionals) on scales from 0 = not at all/extremely unacceptable to 6 = very/all the time/extremely acceptable. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (n = 117) among family physicians and 69% (n = 64) among non-physician clinicians. Mean ratings (standard deviation [SD]) of willingness were high (4.5 [1.4] to 5.0 [1.2] for physicians; 3.4 [1.8] to 4.6 [1.6] non-physician clinicians). There was little participation (mean ratings 2.4 [1.7] to 2.7 [1.6] for physicians, 1.0 [1.5] to 1.4 [1.7] for non-physician clinicians). Non-physician clinicians rated confidence statistically significantly lower than physicians for all ACP aspects. Acceptability for non-physician clinician involvement was high in both groups (mean acceptability ratings greater than 4). CONCLUSION: Current engagement of primary care clinicians in ACP is low. Given the high willingness and acceptability for non-physician clinician involvement, increasing the capacity of non-physician clinicians could enable uptake of ACP in primary care.

Decision support intervention (Plan Well Guide) for patients and their substitute decision-makers to improve engagement in advance care planning: protocol for a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this randomised trial is to evaluate the efficacy of a decision support intervention for serious illness decisions (the Plan Well Guide decision aid; www.PlanWellguide.com) in increasing the engagement of substitute decision-makers (SDMs) in the patient's advance care planning process (ie, 'ACP engagement'), specifically the SDM's confidence and readiness for the role in the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a parallel group randomised controlled trial. We aim to enrol 90 participant dyads: patients aged 65 years and older attending outpatient healthcare settings and with indicators they would be at high risk of needing future medical decisions and their SDM. The intervention is the Plan Well Guide decision aid, administered to the patient by a facilitator, with the SDM present. The primary endpoint is change after 3 months in the SDM's ACP engagement using a validated measure of behavioural change (SDM's knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy and readiness) to enact the role. The secondary endpoints are (1) ACP engagement of the patient measured by a validated survey; (2) change in SDM decisional conflict regarding involvement in future decision-making and (3) postintervention patient decisional conflict regarding preference for life-sustaining treatments. Primary and secondary continuous outcomes will be analysed using the linear regression. The mean difference and 95% CIs will be reported. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval was received August 2017 (2017-3714-GRA) from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. We plan to disseminate trial results in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences, and via our web-based knowledge translation platforms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03239639; Pre-results.

Family physicians and health advocacy: Is it really a difficult fit?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether family medicine residents and faculty members appreciate the full spectrum of health advocacy as described in articles published in Canadian Family Physician in 2016 and to identify the perceived challenges and enablers of advocating across the entire spectrum. DESIGN: Analysis of a subset of data from a qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: University of Toronto in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9 family medicine faculty members and 6 family medicine residents. METHODS: A subset of transcripts from a 2015 qualitative study that explored family medicine and psychiatry residents' and faculty members' understanding of the CanMEDS-Family Medicine health advocate role were reviewed, guided by interpretive descriptive methodology. MAIN FINDINGS: Results indicated that family medicine physicians and residents were able to identify the full spectrum of advocacy described in the Canadian Family Physician articles and that they valued the role. Further, there was widespread agreement that being a health advocate was linked with their identities as health professionals. The time it takes to be a health advocate was seen as a barrier to being effective in the role, and the work was seen as extremely challenging owing to system constraints. Participants also described a gap in training relating to advocacy at the system level as a challenge. CONCLUSION: Team-based care was seen as one of the most important enablers for becoming involved in the full spectrum of advocacy, as was time for personal reflection.

Older patient engagement in advance care planning in Canadian primary care practices: Results of a multisite survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess primary care patients' engagement in advance care planning (ACP) and predictors of engagement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using a revised version of a validated questionnaire. SETTING: Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 20 family practices that provided a consecutive sample of 810 patients aged 50 years and older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Engagement in ACP activities, and sociodemographic and health-related predictors of having engaged in ACP activities. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 66 years (55.6% women). Two-thirds of patients (68.5%; 555) had thought about the kinds of medical treatments they would want or not want if they were sick and in hospital, 52.8% (n = 428) had talked with someone about what they would want, 32.0% (n = 259) had written down their wishes, 50.4% (n = 408) had named someone to be their substitute decision maker, and 23.0% (n = 186) had engaged in all 4 key ACP activities. Of those patients who had talked to someone about medical treatments wanted or not, 17.5% (n = 75) had talked to their family doctors. Age (adjusted odds ratio per 10-year category of 1.55; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.90; P < .001) was significantly associated with having engaged in all ACP activities. CONCLUSION: Many patients have engaged in some ACP activities, but few have discussed ACP with their family physicians. Strategies should be implemented in primary care to reduce the barriers to discussing ACP.

Understanding health advocacy in family medicine and psychiatry curricula and practice: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We explored understanding and experiences of health advocacy among psychiatry and family medicine residents and faculty and the implications for clinical care and teaching through the lens of relationship-centred care. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in the psychiatry and family medicine departments at a large urban university. We interviewed 19 faculty members and conducted two focus groups with 18 residents. Semi-structured questions explored the relational meaning of health advocacy, how residents and faculty learned about the role and ethical considerations involved in incorporating advocacy work into clinical practice within a relationship-centred care framework. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the interviews and focus groups: 1) health advocacy as an extension of the relationship to self; 2) health advocacy and professional boundaries in the physician-patient relationship; 3) health advocacy within a team-based approach; and 4) health advocacy and the physician-community/organization relationship. Participants described implications for practice of the challenges of health advocacy, including perceived institutional risks, professional boundaries and the appropriation of patient voice. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights into the relational complexities of the health advocate role in residency curriculum and clinical practice. All participants described health advocacy as a broad spectrum of actions that are guided by relationships among patients, health care professionals and communities. Our analysis revealed that some challenges that participants identified with a health advocacy role could be addressed by anchoring the role within a specific theoretical framework. This would better enable us to create a culture of advocacy in the training and development of physicians.