Delivery of electroconvulsive therapy in Canada: a first national survey report on usage, treatment practice, and facilities.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to document electroconvulsive therapy use in Canada with respect to treatment facilities and caseloads based on a survey of practice (Canadian Electroconvulsive Therapy Survey/Enquete Canadienne Sur Les Electrochocs-CANECTS/ECANEC) and to consider these findings in the context of guideline recommendations. METHOD: All 1273 registered hospitals in Canada were contacted, and 175 sites were identified as providing electroconvulsive therapy; these sites were invited to complete a comprehensive questionnaire. The survey period was calendar year 2006 or fiscal year 2006/2007. National usage rates were estimated from the responses. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of the sites completed the questionnaire; a further 10% provided caseload data. Seventy were identified as general; 31, as university teaching; and 21, as provincial psychiatric/other single specialty (psychiatric) hospitals. Caseload volumes ranged from a mean of fewer than 2 to greater than 30 treatments per week. Estimated national usage during the 1-year survey period was 7340 to 8083 patients (2.32-2.56 per 10,000 population) and 66,791 to 67,424 treatments (2.11-2.13 per 1000 population). The diagnostic indications, admission status, and protocols for course end points are described. CONCLUSIONS: The usage rates are in keeping with earlier Canadian data and with those from other jurisdictions. The difficulty obtaining caseload data from individual hospitals is indicative of the need for standardized data collection to support both clinical research and quality assurance. The wide variation in protocols for number of treatments per course indicates a need for better informed clinical guidelines. The broad range of caseload volumes suggests the need to review the economies of scale in the field.

Electroconvulsive therapy teaching in Canada: cause for concern.

AIM: The objective of this study was to present survey data on the teaching of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in health care centers across Canada. METHODS: Of 1273 centers identified, 175 were found to practice ECT. These centers were asked to complete a questionnaire, and 107 (61%) of them answered 5 questions dealing specifically with ECT teaching. These questions were as follows: (1) Does your facility have an ECT teaching program for residents in psychiatry? (2) How is ECT taught to residents in psychiatry? (3) If direct supervision of the administration of ECT is a requirement of the psychiatry training program, is there a minimum number of supervised treatments or minimum duration of training period? (4) Do residents provide unsupervised ECT at your center? (5) Which other groups of learners, if any, are provided with orientation, teaching, or training in ECT? RESULTS: Sixty percent of respondents had no ECT teaching program for psychiatry residents. Pedagogical methods varied, ranging from direct observation of ECT treatments to directed readings. Few centers required a minimum number of supervised treatments. No resident-administered ECT is performed without direct supervision. Interestingly, various groups of health care professionals were often invited to participate in ECT training. CONCLUSIONS: The situation regarding ECT teaching continues to be a cause for concern given the noted absence of organized, structured, and mandatory programs. No resident administering ECT, however, goes unsupervised, which is in keeping with good practice. Electroconvulsive therapy is taught in many different ways, and teaching is accessible to different groups of health care professionals. However, much remains to be done to standardize ECT teaching to render this therapy available to all those who need it and to overcome the stigma and bias associated with it.

Access to electroconvulsive therapy services in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine factors governing access to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in Canada. METHODS: We contacted all 1273 registered health care institutions in Canada and invited the 175 centers identified as providing ECT to complete a comprehensive questionnaire. To determine geographic access to ECT, we used a geographic information system, population density data, and road network data. Responses to 5 questions from the questionnaire were used to identify local barriers to access. RESULTS: Approximately 84% of the population in the 10 Canadian provinces live within a 1-hour drive of an ECT center, but 5% live more than 5 hours' drive away. There was significant province-to-province variation, with all of the citizens of Prince Edward Island living within 2 hours of an ECT center but 12.5% of those in Newfoundland and Labrador living more than 5 hours' distance away. There are no ECT services at all in the 3 territories, which contain 3% of the Canadian population. Nongeographic barriers to access included inadequate human resources, particularly, a lack of anesthesiologists, in 59% of the centers; logistical impedances (52%); space limitations (45%); strictures on the hiring of adequate staff (29%); imposed limits to number of treatments or to operating or postanesthetic room time (28%); and a lack of funds to purchase up-to-date ECT or related anesthesiology equipment (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Electroconvulsive therapy is geographically accessible for most Canadians. Even when geography is not a factor, however, there are significant barriers to access resulting from inadequate availability of qualified professional staff, treatment areas, and funding.