Nurse practitioner and physician end-of-life home visits and end-of-life outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) play critical roles in supporting palliative and end-of-life care in the community. We examined healthcare outcomes among patients who received home visits from physicians and NPs in the 90 days before death. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked data of adult home care users in Ontario, Canada, who died between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. Healthcare outcomes included medications for pain and symptom management, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalisations and a community-based death. We compared the characteristics of and outcomes in decedents who received a home visit from an NP, physician and both to those who did not receive a home visit. RESULTS: Half (56.9%) of adult decedents in Ontario did not receive a home visit from a provider in the last 90 days of life; 34.5% received at least one visit from a physician, 3.8% from an NP and 4.9% from both. Compared with those without any visits, having at least one home visit reduced the odds of hospitalisation and ED visits, and increased the odds of receiving medications for pain and symptom management and achieving a community-based death. Observed effects were larger in patients who received at least one visit from both. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond home care, receiving home visits from primary care providers near the end of life may be associated with better outcomes that are aligned with patients' preferences-emphasising the importance of NPs and physicians' role in supporting people near the end of life.

Medical Assistance in Dying and Palliative Care: Shared Trajectories.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) and palliative care often have an antagonistic relationship in jurisdictions where both are legal, but the early ethical and legal history of palliative care closely mirrors that of MAID in important ways. Palliative practices that are commonplace today were considered homicide or "medically assisted death" in most jurisdictions until quite recently. Moreover, while many patients request MAID today for reasons that are criticized as "ableist," the same rationale is accepted without comment or judgment when used to justify withdrawal of life support or a discontinuation of life-prolonging therapies. Concerns about factors that undermine autonomous decisions for MAID would apply equally to routine palliative care practices. By the same token, palliative care exists because no field in medicine is able to fix every problem it encounters. It is ironic, therefore, that some palliative care providers oppose MAID with the hubristic argument that we can relieve all forms of suffering. Palliative care providers may choose not to participate in MAID, but palliative care and MAID do not have to be mutually exclusive and are often complementary and synergistic for patients and families.

Medical Assistance in Dying, Palliative Care, Safety, and Structural Vulnerability.

As more jurisdictions consider legalizing medical assistance in dying or assisted death (AD), there is an ongoing debate about whether AD is driven by socioeconomic deprivation or inadequate supportive services. Attention has shifted away from population studies that refute this narrative, and focused on individual cases reported in the media that would appear to support these concerns. In this editorial, the authors address these concerns using recent experience in Canada, and argue that even if we accept these stories at face value, the logical policy response would be to address the root causes of structural vulnerability rather than attempt to restrict access to AD. In terms of concerns about safety, the authors go on to point out the parallels between media reports about the misuse of AD and reports of wrongful deaths due to the misuse of palliative care (PC) in jurisdictions where AD was not legal. Ultimately, we cannot justify having a different response to these reports when they apply to AD instead of PC, and nobody has argued that PC should be criminalized in response to such reports. If we are skeptical of the oversight mechanisms used for AD in Canada, we must be equally skeptical of the oversight mechanisms used for end-of-life care in every jurisdiction where AD is not legal, and ask whether prohibiting AD protects the lives of the vulnerable any better than legalization of AD with safeguards.

Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings: Mixed-methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention aimed at building capacity to deliver palliative care in primary care settings. DESIGN: The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year pilot project involving interprofessional palliative care education and an integrated care model to promote early identification and support of patients with palliative care needs. A concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using descriptive data, provider surveys before and after implementation, and interviews with providers and managers. SETTING: Four primary care practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All providers in each practice were invited to participate. Providers used the "surprise question" as a prompt to determine patient eligibility for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider attitudes toward and confidence in providing palliative care, use of palliative care tools, delivery of palliative care, and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were identified for early initiation of palliative care, most of whom had multiple comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care (30% mean increase, P < .05) and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services (25% mean increase, P < .05). There was substantial variation across practices regarding the percentage of patients identified using the surprise question (0.2% to 1.5%), the number of advance care planning conversations initiated (50% to 90%), and mean time to conversation (13 to 76 days). This variation is attributable, in part, to contextual differences across practices. CONCLUSION: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care to patients can be integrated into the routine practice of primary care practitioners with appropriate training and support. Additional research is needed to understand the practice factors that contribute to the success of palliative care interventions in primary care and to examine patient outcomes.

Creating an Environmentally Sustainable Health System Demands a Socially Accountable Approach in a Post-COVID World.

The impacts of climate change can already be seen among many of the patients in our clinics and emergency rooms, and as with all disasters, the most impoverished and marginalized members of society are the hardest hit. The health system has a social accountability role to anticipate and respond to the evolving health needs of our society. We are the stewards of this planet, steering the course through current and future challenges. What we do now will determine what the world will be like for our children and grandchildren. At times like this, more than ever before, health workers around the world must unite and engage in contributing to shaping future policy directions and monitoring progress to create a post-COVID world where social accountability and sustainable development go hand in hand.

Assessing the Impact of Early Identification of Patients Appropriate for Palliative Care on Resource Use and Costs in the Final Month of Life.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether an intervention to identify Canadian patients eligible for a palliative approach changes the use of health care resources and costs within the final month of life. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians identified 1,187 patients in family practice units and cancer centers who were likely to die within 1 year based on diagnosis, symptom assessment, and performance status. A multidisciplinary intervention that included activation of community resources and initiation of palliative planning was started. By using propensity-score matching, patients in the intervention group were matched 1:1 with nonintervention controls selected from provincial administrative data. We compared health care use and costs (using 2017 Canadian dollars) for 30 days before death between patients who died within the 1-year follow-up and matched controls. RESULTS: Groups (n = 629 in each group) were well-balanced in sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and previous health care use. In the last 30 days, there was no differences in proportions between the two groups of patients regarding emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, or inpatient hospitalizations. However, patients in the intervention group had greater use of palliative physician encounters, community home care visits, and/or physician home visits (92.8% v 88.4%; P = .007). In the 507 pairs with cancer, more patients in the intervention group underwent chemotherapy (44% v 33%; P < .001) and radiation (18.7% v 3.2%; P = .043) in the last 30 days. Mean cost per patient was similar for the intervention group (mean, $17,231; 95% CI, $16,027 to $18,436) and for the control group (mean, $16,951; 95% CI, $15,899 to $18,004). CONCLUSION: Even with the limitations in our observational study design, identification of palliative patients did not significantly change overall costs but may shift resources toward palliative services.

Does early palliative identification improve the use of palliative care services?

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care impacts on the use of palliative, community and acute-based care services. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians from eight sites were encouraged to systematically identify patients who were likely to die within one year and would were thought to benefit from early palliative care. Patients in the INTEGRATE Intervention Group were 1:1 matched to controls selected from provincial healthcare administrative data using propensity score-matching. The use of palliative care, community-based care services (home care, physician home visit, and outpatient opioid use) and acute care (emergency department, hospitalization) was each evaluated within one year after the date of identification. The hazard ratio (HR) in the Intervention Group was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Of the 1,185 patients in the Intervention Group, 951 (80.3%) used palliative care services during follow-up, compared to 739 (62.4%) among 1,185 patients in the Control Group [HR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.82)]. The Intervention Group also had higher proportions of patients who used home care [81.4% vs. 55.2%; HR 2.07 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.27)], had physician home visits [35.5% vs. 23.7%; HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.92)] or had increased outpatient opioid use [64.3% vs. 52.1%); HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.57]. The Intervention Group was also more likely to have a hospitalization that was not primarily focused on palliative care (1.42 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.58)) and an unplanned emergency department visit for non-palliative care purpose (1.47 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.64)). CONCLUSION: Physicians actively identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care resulted in increased use of palliative and community-based care services, but also increased use of acute care services.

Loss of relationship: a qualitative study of families and healthcare providers after patient death and home-based palliative care ends.

BACKGROUND: Home-based palliative care is care of the patient in their home, while doctors and other healthcare providers (HCPs) make visits as required. Family involvement naturally cultivates a relationship between HCPs and the family. Once the patient dies and home-based palliative care ends, this relationship is abruptly terminated, which may be challenging to both the family and the HCPs. The objective of this study was to understand the thoughts and opinions of HCPs and families on their encountered loss of relationship at the end of home-based palliative care. METHODS: Perceptions of 63 participants (32 HCPs and 31 family members) were explored using semi-structured interviews and the qualitative research methodologies of grounded theory. HCPs were interviewed at the Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care (TLCPC), a home-based palliative care group of physicians, and 2 hospitals in Toronto, while family members were recruited from TLCPC's records of deceased patients. RESULTS: Six overarching themes, relating to HCP-family relationship dynamics, the experience of loss of relationship, and potential solutions, were derived from the data: (I) home palliative care is intimate; (II) dissatisfaction is experienced with abrupt relationship ending; (III) families benefit from open communication, especially after patient death; (IV) HCPs recognize the insufficiency in bereavement resources; (V) benefits are recognized for a system to ease loss of relationship, and lastly; (VI) challenges with introducing such a system concern HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, families and HCPs do not like the loss of relationship post-patient death, and recognize the potential benefits of an approach that would allow for communication going forward.

Integrating early palliative care into routine practice for patients with cancer: A mixed methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing evidence from controlled trials on benefits of early palliative care, there is a need for studies examining implementation in real-world settings. The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year real-world project that promoted early identification and support of patients with cancer who may benefit from palliative care. This study assesses feasibility, stakeholder experiences, and early impact of the INTEGRATE Project METHODS: The INTEGRATE Project was implemented in four cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, and consisted of interdisciplinary provider education and an integrated care model. Providers used the Surprise Question to identify patients for inclusion. A mixed methods evaluation of INTEGRATE was conducted using descriptive data, interviews with providers and managers, and provider surveys. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients with cancer (lung, glioblastoma, head and neck, gastrointestinal) were included. Results suggest improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care and to initiate the Advanced Care Planning (ACP) conversation. The majority of patients (85%) had an ACP or goals of care (GOC) conversation initiated within a mean time to conversation of 5-46 days (SD 20-93) across centers. A primary care report was transmitted to family doctors 48-100% of the time within a mean time to transmission of 7-54 days (SD 9-27) across centers. Enablers and barriers influencing success of the model were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care for patients with cancer can be integrated into the routine practice of oncology providers, with appropriate education, integration into existing clinical workflows, and administrative support.

Do family health clinics provide primary-level palliative care in Ontario and the eastern regions of Quebec?

OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which family health clinics in Ontario and the eastern regions of the province of Quebec provide palliative care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ontario and the eastern regions of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: The clinic leads of a select group of family health clinics with patient enrolment models in Ontario and the eastern regions of Quebec. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The types of palliative care services that the clinics provide, as well as the enablers of and barriers to providing palliative care within the 2 provinces. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 32%. Clinics in both provinces reported providing palliative care to ambulatory patients (83% of Ontario clinics and 74% of Quebec clinics). Only 29 of 102 (28%) Ontario clinics provided on-call services themselves, compared with 31 of 34 (91%) Quebec clinics, with the resulting effect being that more patients were directed to emergency departments in Ontario. Access to palliative care specialist teams for support was higher in Ontario than in Quebec (67% vs 41%, respectively). In Ontario, 56% of practices indicated that they had access to palliative care physicians who could take over the care of their patients with palliative care needs, but a lower number (44%) actually handed over care to these physicians. CONCLUSION: A group of clinics are providing full palliative care services to their own patients with palliative care needs, including "on-call" services and home visits, and these serve as role models. In Ontario in particular, substantial gaps still exist with respect to clinics providing their own after-hours coverage and home visits; many rely on other services to provide that care. In Quebec, lack of access to palliative care specialist teams appears to be a key challenge in the areas included in this survey. This survey could help policy makers and funders of health care services ensure that appropriate conditions are put in place for optimal palliative care provision in these clinics, such as coordinating access to on-call coverage and support from palliative care specialist teams, as well as providing education to all physicians and adequate remuneration.