Association between opioid use disorder and palliative care: a cohort study using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are at risk of premature death and can benefit from palliative care. We sought to compare palliative care provision for decedents with and without OUD. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to identify people who died between July 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2021. The exposure was OUD, defined as having emergency department visits, hospital admissions, or pharmacologic treatments suggestive of OUD within 3 years of death. Our primary outcome was receipt of 1 or more palliative care services during the last 90 days before death. Secondary outcomes included setting, initiation, and intensity of palliative care. We conducted a secondary analysis excluding sudden deaths (e.g., opioid toxicity, injury). RESULTS: Of 679 840 decedents, 11 200 (1.6%) had OUD. Compared with people without OUD, those with OUD died at a younger age and were more likely to live in neighbourhoods with high marginalization indices. We found people with OUD were less likely to receive palliative care at the end of their lives (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.86), but this difference did not exist after excluding people who died suddenly (adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.01). People with OUD were less likely to receive palliative care in clinics and their homes regardless of cause of death. INTERPRETATION: Opioid use disorder can be a chronic, life-limiting illness, and people with OUD are less likely to receive palliative care in communities during the 90 days before death. Health care providers should receive training in palliative care and addiction medicine to support people with OUD.

Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home (ACEPATH): Codesigning an intervention to improve patient and family caregiver experiences.

BACKGROUND: Returning home from the hospital for palliative-focused care is a common transition, but the process can be emotionally distressing and logistically challenging for patients and caregivers. While interventions exist to aid in the transition, none have been developed in partnership with patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVE: To undergo the initial stages of codesign to create an intervention (Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home [ACEPATH]) to improve the experience of hospital-to-home transitions for adult patients receiving palliative care and their caregiver(s). METHODS: The codesign process consisted of (1) the development of codesign workshop (CDW) materials to communicate key findings from prior research to CDW participants; (2) CDWs with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs); and (3) low-fidelity prototype testing to review CDW outputs and develop low-fidelity prototypes of interventions. HCPs provided feedback on the viability of low-fidelity prototypes. RESULTS: Three patients, seven caregivers and five HCPs participated in eight CDWs from July 2022 to March 2023. CDWs resulted in four intervention prototypes: a checklist, quick reference sheets, a patient/caregiver workbook and a transition navigator role. Outputs from CDWs included descriptions of interventions and measures of success. In April 2023, the four prototypes were presented in four low-fidelity prototype sessions to 20 HCPs. Participants in the low-fidelity prototype sessions provided feedback on what the interventions could look like, what problems the interventions were trying to solve and concerns about the interventions. CONCLUSION: Insights gained from this codesign work will inform high-fidelity prototype testing and the eventual implementation and evaluation of an ACEPATH intervention that aims to improve hospital-to-home transitions for patients receiving a palliative approach to care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers with lived experience attended CDWs aimed at designing an intervention to improve the transition from hospital to home. Their direct involvement aligns the intervention with patients' and caregivers' needs when transitioning from hospital to home. Furthermore, four patient/caregiver advisors were engaged throughout the project (from grant writing through to manuscript writing) to ensure all stages were patient- and caregiver-centred.

Place of Death and Place of Care at the End of Life: Are They Correlated? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Ontario Decedents.

Background: Dying in nonpalliative acute care is generally considered inappropriate and avoidable. Place of death, a commonly reported big-dot indicator of end-of-life care quality, is often used as a proxy for place of care despite no empirical evidence for their correlations. Thus, we examined the correlations between place of death and place of care in the last month of life. We also investigated anecdotal claims that individuals cared in acute care often get discharged to die at home, and vice versa. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Ontario decedents (18+) who died between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. We identified individuals who died in nonpalliative acute care, palliative care unit, subacute care, long-term care (LTC), and the community. We calculated the number of days decedents spent in each setting in their last month of life, and used descriptive analyses to investigate their correlations. Results: Decedent's place of death generally correlated with their place of care in the last month of life-individuals who died in a particular setting spent more time in that setting than individuals who died elsewhere. Furthermore, 75.0% of individuals who spent more than two weeks of their last month in acute care died in acute care. Among individuals who died in the community and in LTC, 65.4% and 75.0%, respectively, spent zero days in acute care. Interpretation: We showed that place of death can be a useful high-level performance indicator, by itself and as a proxy for place of care, to gauge end-of-life quality and service provision/implementation.

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.

Re-Imagining Care for Older Adults with Heart Failure and Other Serious Illnesses.

Most patients with heart failure prefer to die at home and want to avoid unnecessary or aggressive treatments as they approach the end of life. Collaborative care models that provide coordinated, linked services from palliative and subspecialty practitioners may enable more effective heart failure-specific palliation in the home setting. Using both administrative health data at ICES and qualitative data from interviews with cardiology and palliative care physicians and nurse practitioners, researchers have found new evidence that collaborative care integrated into a regionally organized system of palliation positively impacts outcomes for people with heart failure and meets quality indicators for end-of-life heart failure care across Ontario.

End-of-life interventions in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To describe variations in the receipt of potentially inappropriate interventions in the last 100 days of life of patients with cancer according to patient characteristics and cancer site. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of cancer decedents in Ontario, Canada who died between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Potentially inappropriate interventions, including chemotherapy, major surgery, intensive care unit admission, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, dialysis, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical ventilation, feeding tube placement, blood transfusion and bronchoscopy, were captured via hospital discharge records. We used Poisson regression to examine associations between interventions and decedent age, sex, rurality, income and cancer site. RESULTS: Among 151 618 decedents, 81.3% received at least one intervention, and 21.4% received 3+ different interventions. Older patients (age 95-105 years vs 19-44 years, rate ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.38) and women (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.94) had lower intervention rates. Rural patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.10), individuals in the highest area-level income quintile (vs lowest income quintile RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04), and patients with pancreatic cancer (vs colorectal cancer RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.12) had higher intervention rates. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially inappropriate interventions were common in the last 100 days of life of cancer decedents. Variations in interventions may reflect differences in prognostic awareness, healthcare access, and care preferences and quality. Earlier identification of patients' palliative care needs and involvement of palliative care specialists may help reduce the use of these interventions at the end of life.

Differences in Palliative Care Provision by Primary and Specialist Providers Supporting Patients With COVID-19: A Qualitative Study.

Objectives: To describe the delivery of palliative care by primary providers (PP) and specialist providers (SP) to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: PP and SP completed interviews about their experiences providing palliative care. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-one physicians (11 SP, 10 PP) were interviewed. Six thematic categories emerged. Care provision: PP and SP described their support of care discussions, symptom management, managing end of life, and care withdrawal. Patients provided care: PP described patients at end of life, with comfort-focused goals; SP included patients seeking life-prolonging treatments. Approach to symptom management: SP described comfort, and PP discomfort in providing opioids with survival-focused goals. Goals of care: SP felt these conversations were code status-focused. Supporting family: both groups indicated difficulties engaging families due to visitor restrictions; SP also outlined challenges in managing family grief and need to advocate for family at the bedside. Care coordination: internist PP and SP described difficulties supporting those leaving the hospital. Conclusion: PP and SP may have a different approach to care, which may affect consistency and quality of care.

Physician perceptions of restrictive visitor policies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects. METHODS: We conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English. INTERPRETATION: Our study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.

Palliative care for people who use drugs during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics: A scoping review on access, policies, and programs and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: People who use drugs with life-limiting illnesses experience substantial barriers to accessing palliative care. Demand for palliative care is expected to increase during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics. Understanding how epidemics and pandemics affect palliative care for people who use drugs is important from a service delivery perspective and for reducing population health inequities. AIM: To explore what is known about communicable disease epidemics and pandemics, palliative care, and people who use drugs. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched six bibliographic databases from inception to April 2021 as well as the grey literature. We included English and French records about palliative care access, programs, and policies and guidelines for people ⩾18 years old who use drugs during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in our analysis. We identified limited knowledge about palliative care for people who use drugs during epidemics and pandemics other than HIV/AIDS. Through our thematic synthesis of the records, we generated the following themes: enablers and barriers to access, organizational barriers, structural inequity, access to opioids and other psychoactive substances, and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the need for further research about how best to provide palliative care for people who use drugs during epidemics and pandemics. We suggest four ways that health systems can be better prepared to help alleviate the structural barriers that limit access as well as support the provision of high-quality palliative care during future epidemics and pandemics.

Describing settings of care in the last 100 days of life for cancer decedents: a population-based descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have described the settings cancer decedents spend their end-of-life stage, with none considering homecare specifically. We describe the different settings of care experienced in the last 100 days of life by individuals with cancer and how settings of care change as they approached death. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from January 2013 to December 2017, of decedents whose primary cause of death was cancer, using linked population-level health administrative datasets in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Decedents 125,755 were included in our cohort. The average age at death was 73, 46% were female, and 14% resided in rural regions. And 24% died of lung cancer, 7% breast, 7% colorectal, 7% pancreatic, 5% prostate, and 50% other cancers. In the last 100 days of life, decedents spent 25.9 days in institutions, 25.8 days receiving care in the community, and 48.3 days at home without any care. Individuals who died of lung and pancreatic cancers spent the most days at home without any care (52.1 and 52.6 days), while individuals who died of prostate and breast cancer spent the least days at home without any care (41.6 and 45.1 days). Regardless of cancer type, decedents spent fewer days at home and more days in institutions as they approached death, despite established patient preferences for an end-of-life experience at home. CONCLUSIONS: In the last 100 days of life, cancer decedents spent most of their time in either institutions or at home without any care. Improving homecare services during the end-of-life may provide people dying of cancer with a preferred dying experience.

Continuity of physician care over the last year of life for different cause-of-death categories: a retrospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The mix of care provided by family physicians, specialists and palliative care physicians can vary by the illnesses leading to death, which may result in disruptions of continuity of care at the end of life. We measured continuity of outpatient physician care in the last year of life across differing causes of death and assessed factors associated with higher continuity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study of adults who died in Ontario between 2013 and 2018, using linked provincial health administrative data. We calculated 3 measures of continuity (usual provider, Bice-Boxerman and sequential continuity), which range from 0 to 1, from outpatient physician visits over the last year of life for terminal illness, organ failure, frailty, sudden death and other causes of death. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations between characteristics and a continuity score of 0.5 or greater. RESULTS: Among the 417 628 decedents, we found that mean usual provider, Bice-Boxerman and sequential continuity indices were 0.37, 0.30 and 0.37, respectively, with continuity being the lowest for those with terminal illness (0.27, 0.23 and 0.33, respectively). Higher number of comorbidities, higher neighbourhood income quintile and all non-sudden death categories were associated with lower continuity. INTERPRETATION: We found that continuity of physician care in the last year of life was low, especially in those with cancer. Further research is needed to validate measures of continuity against end-of-life health care outcomes.

Regional collaborative home-based palliative care and health care outcomes among adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Innovative models of collaborative palliative care are urgently needed to meet gaps in end-of-life care among people with heart failure. We sought to determine whether regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care that involves cardiologists, primary care providers and palliative care specialists, and that uses shared decision-making to promote goal- and need-concordant care for patients with heart failure, was associated with a greater likelihood of patients dying at home than in hospital. METHODS: We conducted a population-based matched cohort study of adults who died with chronic heart failure across 2 large health regions in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was location of death. Secondary outcomes included rates of health care use, including unplanned visits to the emergency department, hospital admissions, hospital lengths of stay, admissions to the intensive care unit, number of visits with primary care physicians or cardiologists, number of home visits by palliative care physicians or nurse practitioners, and number of days spent at home. RESULTS: Patients who received regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care (n = 245) had a 48% lower associated risk of dying in hospital (relative risk 52%, 95% confidence interval 44%-66%) compared with the matched cohort (n = 1172) who received usual care, with 101 (41.2%) and 917 (78.2%) patients, respectively, dying in hospital (number needed to treat = 3). Additional associated benefits of the collaborative approach included higher rates of clinician home visits, longer time to first hospital admission, shorter hospital stays and more days spent at home. INTERPRETATION: Adoption of a model of regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care that uses shared decision-making may improve end-of-life outcomes for people with chronic heart failure.

Supporting the Heterogeneous and Evolving Treatment Preferences of Patients With Heart Failure Through Collaborative Home-Based Palliative Care.

Background We characterized the treatment preferences, care setting, and end-of-life outcomes among patients with advanced heart failure supported by a collaborative home-based model of palliative care. Methods and results This decedent cohort study included 250 patients with advanced heart failure who received collaborative home-based palliative care for a median duration of 1.9 months of follow-up in Ontario, Canada, from April 2013 to July 2019. Patients were categorized into 1 of 4 groups according to their initial treatment preferences. Outcomes included location of death (out of hospital versus in hospital), changes in treatment preferences, and health service use. Among patients who initially prioritized quantity of life, 21 of 43 (48.8%) changed their treatment preferences during follow-up (mean 0.28 changes per month). The majority of these patients changed their preferences to avoid hospitalization and focus on comfort at home (19 of 24 changes, 79%). A total of 207 of 250 (82.8%) patients experienced an out-of-hospital death. Patients who initially prioritized quantity of life had decreased odds of out-of-hospital death (versus in-hospital death; adjusted odds ratio, 0.259 [95% CI, 0.097-0.693]) and more frequent hospitalizations (mean 0.45 hospitalizations per person-month) compared with patients who initially prioritized quality of life at home. Conclusions Our results yield a more detailed understanding of the interaction of advanced care planning and patient preferences. Shared decision making for personalized treatment is dynamic and can be enacted earlier than at the very end of life.

Virtual home-based palliative care during COVID-19: A qualitative exploration of the patient, caregiver, and healthcare provider experience.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many community palliative healthcare providers shifted from providing care in a patient's home to providing almost exclusively virtual palliative care, or a combination of in-person and virtual care. Research on virtual palliative care is thus needed to provide evidence-based recommendations aiming to enhance the delivery of palliative care during and beyond the pandemic. AIM: To explore the experiences and perceptions of community palliative care providers, patients and caregivers who delivered or received virtual palliative care as a component of home-based palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative study using phone and video-based semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 37 participants, including community palliative care patients/caregivers (n = 19) and healthcare providers (n = 18) recruited from sites in Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Overall, participants preferred in-person palliative care compared to virtual care, but suggested virtual care could be a useful supplement to in-person care. The findings are presented in three main themes: (1) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on community palliative care services; (2) Factors influencing transition from exclusively virtual model of care back to a blended model of care; and (3) Recommended uses and implementation of virtual palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating virtual palliative care into healthcare provider practice models (blended care models) may be the ideal model of care and standard practice moving forward beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, which has important implications toward organization and delivery of community palliative care services and funding of healthcare providers.

Exploring Health Care Providers' Experiences of Providing Collaborative Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure At Home: A Qualitative Study.

Background The HeartFull Collaborative is a regionally organized model of care which involves specialist palliative care and cardiology health care providers (HCPs) in a collaborative, home-based palliative care approach for patients with advanced heart failure (AHF). We evaluated HCP perspectives of barriers and facilitators to providing coordinated palliative care for patients with AHF at home. Methods and Results We conducted a qualitative study with 17 HCPs (11 palliative care and 6 cardiology) who were involved in the HeartFull Collaborative from April 2013 to March 2020. Individual, semi-structured interviews were held with each practitioner from November 2019 to March 2020. We used an interpretivist and inductive thematic analysis approach. We identified facilitators at 2 levels: (1) individual HCP level (on-going professional education to expand competency) and (2) interpersonal level (shared care between specialties, effective communication within the care team). Ongoing barriers were identified at 2 levels: (1) individual HCP level (e.g. apprehension of cardiology practitioners to introduce palliative care) and (2) system level (e.g. lack of availability of personal support worker hours). Conclusions Our results suggest that a collaborative shared model of care delivery between palliative care and cardiology improves knowledge exchange, collaboration and communication between specialties, and leads to more comprehensive patient care. Addressing ongoing barriers will help improve care delivery. Findings emphasize the acceptability of the program from a provider perspective, which is encouraging for future implementation. Further research is needed to improve prognostication, assess patient and caregiver perspectives regarding this model of care, and assess the economic feasibility and impact of this model of care.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is well suited to support patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but integration into care has been variable and generally poor. AIM: To understand barriers and facilitators of palliative care integration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Internists, Intensivists and palliative care physicians completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences providing care to patients with COVID-19. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three physicians (13 specialist palliative care, five intensivists, five general internists) were interviewed; mean ± SD age was 42 ± 11 years and 61% were female. Six thematic categories were described including: patient and family factors, palliative care knowledge, primary provider factors, COVID-19 specific factors, palliative care service factors, and leadership and culture factors. Patient and family factors included patient prognosis, characteristics that implied prognosis (i.e., age, etc.), and goals of care. Palliative care knowledge included confidence in primary palliative care skills, misperception that COVID-19 is not a 'palliative diagnosis', and the need to choose quantity or quality of life in COVID-19 management. Primary provider factors included available time, attitude, and reimbursement. COVID-19 specific factors were COVID-19 as an impetus to act, uncertain illness trajectory, treatments and outcomes, and infection control measures. Palliative care service factors were accessibility, adaptability, and previous successful relationships. Leadership and culture factors included government-mandated support, presence at COVID planning tables, and institutional and unit culture. CONCLUSION: The study findings highlight the need for leadership support for formal integrated models of palliative care for patients with COVID-19, a palliative care role in pandemic planning, and educational initiatives with primary palliative care providers.

HeartFull: Feasibility of an Integrated Program of Care for Patients with Advanced Stage of Heart Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Patients at an advanced stage of heart failure (AHF), specifically chronic severe symptomatic heart failure defined as New York Heart Association III/IV with hospitalization in the year prior, have high mortality, healthcare utilization, and low palliative care involvement. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to determine the feasibility of recruiting patients and engaging cardiology and palliative healthcare providers in a program of integrated care for AHF (HeartFull); the proportion of patients who died in non-acute care settings. Secondary objectives were to describe patient-reported outcomes and pre-post comparison of healthcare utilization. METHODS: Patients were recruited from an urban academic hospital with expert heart failure care and a 24/7 inpatient and home palliative service. Utilization, disposition, and surveys were collected monthly for up to 20 months. RESULTS: Of 46 patients referred, 30 (65%) agreed to participate, 27 died during the study period, 19 (70%) died in non-acute care settings, while 8 (30%) died in hospital. We found no significant difference in pre- and post-intervention rates of hospitalization (RR .715; CI .360, 1.388; P = .3180), nor emergency visits (RR .678; CI .333, 1.338; P = .2590), but both trended downward. No significant changes were observed in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: In an urban academic hospital with palliative care, it was feasible to implement an integrated program for AHF. Patients died at home or in a palliative care unit at rates similar to palliative oncology patients and at higher rates than the general AHF population. HeartFull is now part of clinical practice.

Inpatient Palliative Care Is Associated with the Receipt of Palliative Care in the Community after Hospital Discharge: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: For hospitalized patients with palliative care needs, there is little evidence on whether postdischarge outcomes differ if inpatient palliative care was delivered by a palliative care specialist or nonspecialist/generalist. Objective: To evaluate relationships between inpatient palliative care involvement and physician-delivered palliative care in the community after hospital discharge among individuals with limited life expectancy. Design: Population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health data. Settings/Subjects: Adults with a predicted median survival of six months or less admitted to acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, and discharged to the community. Measurements: Inpatient palliative care involvement was classified as high (e.g., palliative care unit), medium (e.g., palliative care specialist consult), low (e.g., generalist-delivered palliative care), or none. Community palliative care included outpatient and home and clinic visits three weeks postdischarge. Results: Among 3660 hospitalized adults, 82 (2.2%) received inpatient palliative care with high level of involvement, 462 (12.6%) with medium level of involvement, 525 (14.3%) with low level of involvement, and 2591 (70.8%) had no inpatient palliative care. Patients who received inpatient palliative care were more likely to receive community palliative care after discharge than those who received no inpatient palliative care. These associations were stronger among patients who received high/medium palliative care involvement than patients who received low palliative care involvement. Conclusions: Inpatient palliative care, including that delivered by generalists, is associated with an increased likelihood of community palliative care after discharge. Increased inpatient generalist palliative care may help support patients' palliative care needs.

RELIEF: A Digital Health Tool for the Remote Self-Reporting of Symptoms in Patients with Cancer to Address Palliative Care Needs and Minimize Emergency Department Visits.

The lack of timely symptom reporting remains a barrier to effective symptom management and comfort for patients with cancer-related palliative care needs. Poor symptom management at home can lead to unwanted outcomes, such as emergency department visits and death in hospital. We developed and evaluated RELIEF, a remote symptom self-reporting app for community patients with palliative care needs. A pilot feasibility study was conducted at a large, community hospital in Ontario, Canada. Patients self-reported their symptoms each morning using validated clinical symptom measures and RELIEF would alert for worsening or severe symptoms. RELIEF alerts were monitored by palliative care nurses who would then contact patients to determine if appropriate clinical intervention could be initiated to avoid unnecessary emergency department visits. A total of 20 patients were recruited to use RELIEF for two months. Patients completed 80% of daily self-report assessments; 133 alerts were trigged, half of which required clinical intervention. No patient visited the emergency department for symptom management during the study. Clinical staff estimated five emergency department visits were avoided because of RELIEF-saving an estimated cost of over CAD 60,000. RELIEF is a feasible and acceptable method for the remote monitoring of patients with palliative care needs through regular symptom self-reporting.

Palliative care for people who use substances during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Communicable disease epidemics and pandemics magnify the health inequities experienced by marginalised populations. People who use substances suffer from high rates of morbidity and mortality and should be a priority to receive palliative care, yet they encounter many barriers to palliative care access. Given the pre-existing inequities to palliative care access for people with life-limiting illnesses who use substances, it is important to understand the impact of communicable disease epidemics and pandemics such as COVID-19 on this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review and report according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in seven bibliographical databases from the inception of each database to August 2020. We also performed a grey literature search to identify the publications not indexed in the bibliographical databases. All the searches will be rerun in April 2021 to retrieve recently published information because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing at the time of this writing. We will extract the quantitative data using a standardised data extraction form and summarise it using descriptive statistics. Additionally, we will conduct thematic qualitative analyses and present our findings as narrative summaries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for a scoping review. We will disseminate our findings to healthcare providers and policymakers through professional networks, digital communications through social media platforms, conference presentations and publication in a scientific journal.