Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Palliative Care Unit Utilization: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

CONTEXT: People with noncancer diagnoses have poorer access to palliative care units (PCUs) or hospices compared to those with cancer diagnoses. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted how specialist palliative care services were delivered and utilized. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and PCU/hospice utilization in hospitalized individuals with cancer and noncancer diagnoses with specialist palliative care needs. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data. Percentages of individuals experiencing each disposition from hospital, including discharge to PCU/hospice, were calculated monthly for the total, cancer, and noncancer cohorts and were analyzed descriptively. Hospitalized individuals with specialist palliative care needs at a single academic hospital in Toronto, Canada from January 1, 2017, to September 31, 2022 (pandemic start was defined as April 1, 2020). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 4349 individuals (median age=78 years; 52.4% female); 3065 (70.5%) and 1284 (29.5%) had cancer and noncancer diagnoses, respectively. Among individuals with noncancer diagnoses, the most significant absolute changes were a 13.0%-decrease in in-hospital deaths (prepandemic=49.6%; postpandemic=36.6%) and a 11.6%-increase in discharges to PCU/hospice (prepandemic=35.6%; postpandemic=47.3%). Among individuals with cancer, the most significant absolute changes were a 12.8%-increase in discharges home with formal care (prepandemic=2.3%; postpandemic=15.1%) and a 7.0%-decrease in in-hospital deaths (prepandemic=29.1%; postpandemic=22.0%). CONCLUSION: Despite historically poor PCU/hospice access, the COVID-19 pandemic created circumstances that may have enabled unprecedented utilization in individuals with noncancer diagnoses in our cohort.

"Walk me through the final day": A thematic analysis study on the family caregiver experience of the Medical Assistance in Dying procedure day.

BACKGROUND: Legalization of assisted dying is progressively expanding worldwide. In Canada, the Medical Assistance in Dying Act became law in 2016. As assisted dying regulations evolve worldwide, comprehending its subjective impact and broader consequences, especially on family members, becomes pivotal for shaping practice, policy, and training. AIM: The goal of this study is to understand the experience of family caregivers on the assisted dying procedure day. DESIGN: Qualitative, thematic analysis, research using semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Family caregivers of patients who received assisted dying in two hospitals in Canada were recruited. Interviews were conducted at least 6 months after patient death. Conceptual saturation was achieved after analyzing 18 interviews. RESULTS: While caregivers expressed gratitude for the availability of Medical Assistance in Dying, they also described the procedure day as potentially jarring and unsettling. We identified five aspects that shaped their experience: attuned support from the clinical team; preparation for clinical details; congruence between the setting and the importance of the event; active participation and ceremony; and pacing and timing of the procedure. Together, these aspects impacted the level of uneasiness felt by caregivers on the procedure day. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasized the importance of a family-centered approach to delivering Medical Assistance in Dying. It underscored recognizing the needs of family caregivers during the procedure day and offering strategies to ease their experience. Healthcare providers in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal or deliberated should consider the applicability of these findings to their unique context.

Practices of and Perspectives on Palliative Sedation Among Palliative Care Physicians in Ontario, Canada: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Background: Palliative sedation (PS) is a therapeutic intervention employed to manage severe and refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients at end of life. Inconsistencies in PS practice guidelines coupled with clinician ambiguity have resulted in confusion about how PS is best integrated into practice. Understanding the perspectives, experiences, and practices relating to this modality will provide insight into its clinical application and challenges within the palliative care landscape. Objective: The aim is to explore the perspectives of palliative care physicians administering PS, including how practitioners define PS, factors influencing decision making about the use of PS, and possible reasons for changes in practice patterns over time. Methods: A survey (n = 37) and semistructured interviews (n = 23) were conducted with palliative care physicians throughout Ontario. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by two independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated through reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five key themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization, (2) differing definitions, (3) logistical challenges, (4) perceived "back-up" to Medical Assistance in Dying, and (5) tool of the most responsible physician. Conclusion: There was significant variability in how participants defined PS and in frequency of use of PS. Physicians described greater ease implementing PS when practicing in palliative care units, with significant barriers faced by individuals providing home-based palliative care or working as consultants on inpatient units. Educational efforts are required about the intent and practice of PS, particularly among inpatient interprofessional teams.