Attending physicians' annual service volume and use of virtual end-of-life care: A population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

IMPORTANCE: Physicians and their practice behaviors influence access to healthcare and may represent potentially modifiable targets for practice-changing interventions. Use of virtual care at the end-of-life significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its association with physician practice behaviors, (e.g., annual service volume) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Measure the association of physicians' annual service volume with their use of virtual end-of-life care (EOLC) and the magnitude of physician-attributable variation in its use, before and during the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort study using administrative data of all physicians in Ontario, Canada who cared for adults in the last 90 days of life between 01/25/2018-12/31/2021. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models measured the association between attending physicians' use of virtual EOLC and their annual service volume. We calculated the variance partition coefficients for each regression and stratified by time period before and during the pandemic. EXPOSURE: Annual service volume of a person's attending physician in the preceding year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Delivery of ≥1 virtual EOLC visit by a person's attending physician and the proportion of variation in its use attributable to physicians. RESULTS: Among the 35,825 unique attending physicians caring for 315,494 adults, use of virtual EOLC was associated with receiving care from a high compared to low service volume attending physician; the magnitude of this association diminished during the pandemic (adjusted RR 1.25 [95% CI 1.14, 1.37] pre-pandemic;1.10 (95% CI 1.08, 1.12) during the pandemic). Physicians accounted for 36% of the variation in virtual EOLC use pre-pandemic and 12% of this variation during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Physicians' annual service volume was associated with use of virtual EOLC and physicians accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in its use. Physicians may be appropriate and potentially modifiable targets for interventions to modulate use of EOLC delivery.

Association of virtual end-of-life care with healthcare outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study.

The use of virtual care for people at the end-of-life significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its association with acute healthcare use and location of death is unknown. The objective of this study was to measure the association between the use of virtual end-of-life care with acute healthcare use and an out-of-hospital death before vs. after the introduction of specialized fee codes that enabled broader delivery of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a population-based cohort study of 323,995 adults in their last 90 days of life between January 25, 2018 and December 31, 2021 using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Primary outcomes were acute healthcare use (emergency department, hospitalization) and location of death (in or out-of-hospital). Prior to March 14, 2020, 13,974 (8%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 16% higher rate of emergency department use (adjusted Rate Ratio [aRR] 1.16, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.20), a 17% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.17, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.20), and a 34% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.34, 95%CI 1.31 to 1.37) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. After March 14, 2020, 104,165 (71%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 58% higher rate of an emergency department visit (aRR 1.58, 95%CI 1.54 to 1.62), a 45% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.45, 95%CI 1.42 to 1.47), and a 65% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.65, 95%CI 1.61 to 1.69) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. The use of virtual end-of-life care was associated with higher acute healthcare use in the last 90 days of life and a higher likelihood of dying out-of-hospital, and these rates increased during the pandemic.

Socioeconomic Status, Palliative Care, and Death at Home Among Patients With Cancer Before and During COVID-19.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care, but less is known about its association with place of death and delivery of specialized palliative care (SPC) and potential disparities in these outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life and to examine whether disparities in socioeconomic status exist for these outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry data comprising adult patients aged 18 years or older who died with cancer between the pre-COVID-19 (March 16, 2015, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021) periods. The data analysis was performed between March and November 2023. Exposure: COVID-19-related hospital restrictions starting March 16, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life (last 30 days before death). Socioeconomic status was measured using Ontario Marginalization Index area-based material deprivation quintiles, with quintile 1 (Q1) indicating the least deprivation; Q3, intermediate deprivation; and Q5, the most deprivation. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate monthly trends in outcomes before, at the start of, and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of 173 915 patients in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.5] years; males, 54.1% [95% CI, 53.8%-54.3%]), 83.7% (95% CI, 83.6%-83.9%) died in the pre-COVID-19 period and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.1%-16.4%) died in the COVID-19 period, 54.5% (95% CI, 54.2%-54.7%) died at home during the entire study period, and 57.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-58.0%) received SPC at the end of life. In March 2020, home deaths increased by 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%); however, this increase was less marked in Q5 (6.1%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.8%) than in Q1 (11.4%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.2%) and Q3 (10.0%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.1%). There was a simultaneous decrease of 5.3% (95% CI, -6.3% to -4.4%) in the rate of SPC at the end of life, with no significant difference among quintiles. Patients who received SPC at the end of life (vs no SPC) were more likely to die at home before and during the pandemic. However, there was a larger immediate increase in home deaths among those who received no SPC at the end of life vs those who received SPC (Q1, 17.5% [95% CI, 15.2%-19.8%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.7%]; Q3, 12.7% [95% CI, 10.8%-14.5%] vs 9.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.7%]). For Q5, the increase in home deaths was significant only for patients who did not receive SPC (13.9% [95% CI, 11.9%-15.8%] vs 1.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with amplified socioeconomic disparities in death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of these disparities and on developing interventions to ensure equitable and consistent SPC access.

The Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Quality of Life in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.

Importance: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that palliative care was not associated with improvement in quality of life (QOL) in terminal noncancer illness. Among potential reasons for a null effect, it is unclear if patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring QOL were derived or validated among populations with advanced life-limiting illness (ALLI). Objective: To systematically review the derivation and validation of QOL PROMs from a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of palliative care interventions in people with terminal noncancer illness. Evidence Review: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 8, 2023 for primary validation studies of QOL PROMs in populations with ALLI, defined as adults with a progressive terminal condition and an estimated median survival of less than or equal to one year. The primary outcome was the proportion of PROMs that were derived or validated in ≥1 ALLI population. Findings: Twenty-one unique studies of derivation (n = 13) and validation (n = 11, 3 studies evaluated both) provided data on 9657 participants (mean age 63 years, 50% female) across 15 unique QOL PROMs and subscales. Among studies of validation, 9 were in people with cancer (n = 2289, n = 5 PROMs), 1 in neurodegenerative disease (n = 23, n = 1 PROM), and 1 with mixed diseases (n = 248, n = 1 PROM). Across 15 QOL PROMs and subscales, 47% (n = 7) were derived or validated in an ALLI population. The majority of these seven PROMs were exclusively derived or validated among people with cancer (57%, n = 4). QOL PROMs such as Quality of Life at End of Life, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-level, and 36-item Short Form Survey demonstrated validity in more than one terminal noncancer illness. Conclusions: Most QOL PROMs that measured the effect of palliative care on QOL in RCTs were neither derived nor validated in an ALLI population. These findings raise questions about the inferences that palliative care does not improve QOL among people with terminal noncancer illness.

Association of patient sex with use of palliative care in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether there are sex-based differences in use of palliative care near the end of life. The objective of this study was to measure the association between sex and palliative care use. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients aged 18 years or older in the last year of life who died in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2018. The primary exposure was patient biologic sex (male or female). The primary outcome was receipt of physician-delivered palliative care; secondary outcomes were approach to in-hospital palliative care and sex concordance of the patient and referring physician. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to measure the association between patient sex and palliative care receipt, as well as patient-physician sex concordance. RESULTS: There were 706 722 patients (354 657 females [50.2%], median age 80 yr [interquartile range 69-87 yr]) in the study cohort, 377 498 (53.4%) of whom received physician-delivered palliative care. After adjustment for age and selected comorbidities, female sex was associated with a 9% relative increase (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10) in receipt of physician-delivered palliative care. Female patients were 16% more likely than male patients (adjusted RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.14-1.18) to have had their first hospital admission in their final year of life categorized as having a likely palliative intent. Female patients were 18% more likely than male patients (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.17-1.19) to have had a female referring physician, and male patients were 20% more likely than female patients (adjusted RR 1.20, CI 1.19-1.21) to have had a male referring physician. INTERPRETATION: After adjustment for age and comorbidities, male patients were slightly less likely than female patients to have received physician-delivered palliative care, and female patients were more likely than male patients to have had their first hospital admission in their final year of life categorized as having a likely palliative care intent. These results may reflect a between-sex difference in overall end-of-life care preferences or sex differences in decision-making influenced by patient-specific factors; further studies exploring how these factors affect end-of-life decision-making are required.

Rehabilitation Interventions for Physical Capacity and Quality of Life in Adults With Post-COVID-19 Condition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Current rehabilitation guidelines for patients with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) are primarily based on expert opinions and observational data, and there is an urgent need for evidence-based rehabilitation interventions to support patients with PCC. Objective: To synthesize the findings of existing studies that report on physical capacity (including functional exercise capacity, muscle function, dyspnea, and respiratory function) and quality of life outcomes following rehabilitation interventions in patients with PCC. Data Sources: A systematic electronic search was performed from January 2020 until February 2023, in MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Clinical Trials Registry. Key terms that were used to identify potentially relevant studies included long-covid, post-covid, sequelae, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, physical activity, physical therapy, and randomized controlled trial. Study Selection: This study included randomized clinical trials that compared respiratory training and exercise-based rehabilitation interventions with either placebo, usual care, waiting list, or control in patients with PCC. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A pairwise bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was performed using vague prior distributions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system by 2 independent researchers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was functional exercise capacity, measured at the closest postintervention time point by the 6-minute walking test. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, lower limb muscle function, dyspnea, respiratory function, and quality of life. All outcomes were defined a priori. Continuous outcomes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and binary outcomes were summarized as odds ratios with 95% CrIs. The between-trial heterogeneity was quantified using the between-study variance, τ2, and 95% CrIs. Results: Of 1834 identified records, 1193 were screened, and 14 trials (1244 patients; 45% female participants; median [IQR] age, 50 [47 to 56] years) were included in the analyses. Rehabilitation interventions were associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity (SMD, -0.56; 95% CrI, -0.87 to -0.22) with moderate certainty in 7 trials (389 participants). These improvements had a 99% posterior probability of superiority when compared with current standard care. The value of τ2 (0.04; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 0.60) indicated low statistical heterogeneity. However, there was significant uncertainty and imprecision regarding the probability of experiencing exercise-induced adverse events (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CrI, 0.32 to 9.94). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that rehabilitation interventions are associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnea, and quality of life, with a high probability of improvement compared with the current standard care; the certainty of evidence was moderate for functional exercise capacity and quality of life and low for other outcomes. Given the uncertainty surrounding the safety outcomes, additional trials with enhanced monitoring of adverse events are necessary.

Understanding How Post-COVID-19 Condition Affects Adults and Health Care Systems.

Importance: Post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), also known as long COVID, encompasses the range of symptoms and sequelae that affect many people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding the functional, health, and economic effects of PCC is important in determining how health care systems may optimally deliver care to individuals with PCC. Observations: A rapid review of the literature showed that PCC and the effects of hospitalization for severe and critical illness may limit a person's ability to perform day-to-day activities and employment, increase their risk of incident health conditions and use of primary and short-term health care services, and have a negative association with household financial stability. Care pathways that integrate primary care, rehabilitation services, and specialized assessment clinics are being developed to support the health care needs of people with PCC. However, comparative studies to determine optimal care models based on their effectiveness and costs remain limited. The effects of PCC are likely to have large-scale associations with health systems and economies and will require substantial investment in research, clinical care, and health policy to mitigate these effects. Conclusions and Relevance: An accurate understanding of additional health care and economic needs at the individual and health system levels is critical to informing health care resource and policy planning, including identification of optimal care pathways to support people affected by PCC.

Interventions to improve outcomes for caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer often have poor quality of life (QOL) and mental health. We examined the effectiveness of interventions offering support for caregivers of patients with advanced cancer on caregiver QOL and mental health outcomes. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from inception through June 2021. Eligible studies reported on randomized controlled trials for adult caregivers of adult patients with advanced cancer. Meta-analysis was conducted for primary outcomes of QOL, physical well-being, mental well-being, anxiety, and depression, from baseline to follow-up of 1-3 months; secondary endpoints were these outcomes at 4-6 months and additional caregiver burden, self-efficacy, family functioning, and bereavement outcomes. Random effects models were used to generate summary standardized mean differences (SMD). RESULTS: Of 12 193 references identified, 56 articles reporting on 49 trials involving 8554 caregivers were eligible for analysis; 16 (33%) targeted caregivers, 19 (39%) patient-caregiver dyads, and 14 (29%) patients and their families. At 1- to 3-month follow-up, interventions had a statistically significant effect on overall QOL (SMD = 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.39); I2 = 52.0%), mental well-being (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.25; I2 = 0.0%), anxiety (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.49; I2 = 74.0%), and depression (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.52; I2 = 64.4) compared with standard care. In narrative synthesis, interventions demonstrated improvements in caregiver self-efficacy and grief. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting caregivers, dyads, or patients and families led to improvements in caregiver QOL and mental health. These data support the routine provision of interventions to improve well-being in caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

Comparison of Medical and Mental Health Sequelae Following Hospitalization for COVID-19, Influenza, and Sepsis.

Importance: People who survive hospitalization for COVID-19 are at risk for developing new cardiovascular, neurological, mental health, and inflammatory autoimmune conditions. It is unclear how posthospitalization risks for COVID-19 compare with those for other serious infectious illnesses. Objective: To compare risks of incident cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health conditions and rheumatoid arthritis in 1 year following COVID-19 hospitalization against 3 comparator groups: prepandemic hospitalization for influenza and hospitalization for sepsis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included all adults hospitalized for COVID-19 between April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021, historical comparator groups of people hospitalized for influenza or sepsis, and a contemporary comparator group of people hospitalized for sepsis in Ontario, Canada. Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19, influenza, or sepsis. Main Outcome and Measures: New occurrence of 13 prespecified conditions, including cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health conditions and rheumatoid arthritis, within 1 year of hospitalization. Results: Of 379 366 included adults (median [IQR] age, 75 [63-85] years; 54% female), there were 26 499 people who survived hospitalization for COVID-19, 299 989 historical controls (17 516 for influenza and 282 473 for sepsis), and 52 878 contemporary controls hospitalized for sepsis. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was associated with an increased 1-year risk of venous thromboembolic disease compared with influenza (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.36-2.31) but with no increased risks of developing selected ischemic and nonischemic cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disorders, neurological disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, or mental health conditions compared with influenza or sepsis cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, apart from an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism within 1 year, the burden of postacute medical and mental health conditions among those who survived hospitalization for COVID-19 was comparable with other acute infectious illnesses. This suggests that many of the postacute consequences of COVID-19 may be related to the severity of infectious illness necessitating hospitalization rather than being direct consequences of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Association Between Diabetes and Mortality Among Adult Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Cohort Study of Hospitalized Adults in Ontario, Canada, and Copenhagen, Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of death among patients with COVID-19. However, the available studies lack detail on COVID-19 illness severity and measurement of relevant comorbidities. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study of patients 18 years of age and older who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020, in Ontario, Canada, and Copenhagen, Denmark. Chart abstraction emphasizing comorbidities and disease severity was performed by trained research personnel. The association between diabetes and death was measured using Poisson regression. The main outcome measure was in-hospital 30-day risk of death. RESULTS: Our study included 1,133 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Ontario and 305 in Denmark, of whom 405 and 75 patients, respectively, had pre-existing diabetes. In both Ontario and Denmark, patients with diabetes were more likely to be older; have chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and higher troponin levels; and be receiving antibiotics, when compared with adults without diabetes. In Ontario, 24% (n=96) of adults with diabetes died compared with 15% (n=109) of adults without diabetes. In Denmark, 16% (n=12) of adults with diabetes died in hospital compared with 13% (n=29) of those without diabetes. In Ontario, the crude mortality ratio among patients with diabetes was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 2.07) and in the adjusted regression model it was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.66). In Denmark, the crude mortality ratio among patients with diabetes was 1.27 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.36) and in the adjusted model it was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.54). Meta-analysis of the 2 rate ratios from each region resulted in a crude mortality ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.22 to 1.96) and an adjusted mortality ratio of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.47). CONCLUSION: The presence of diabetes was not strongly associated with in-hospital COVID-19 mortality independent of illness severity and other comorbidities.

Cardiovascular Considerations in the Management of People With Suspected Long COVID.

Approximately 15% of adult Canadians with SARS-CoV-2 infection develop lingering symptoms beyond 12 weeks after acute infection, known as post-COVID condition or long COVID. Some of the commonly reported long COVID cardiovascular symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, and palpitations. Suspected long-term cardiovascular complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection might present as a constellation of symptoms that can be challenging for clinicians to diagnose and treat. When assessing patients with these symptoms, clinicians need to keep in mind myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, postexertional malaise and postexertional symptom exacerbation, dysautonomia with cardiac manifestations such as inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and occasionally mast cell activation syndrome. In this review we summarize the globally evolving evidence around management of cardiac sequelae of long COVID. In addition, we include a Canadian perspective, consisting of a panel of expert opinions from people with lived experience and experienced clinicians across Canada who have been involved in management of long COVID. The objective of this review is to offer some practical guidance to cardiologists and generalist clinicians regarding diagnostic and treatment approaches for adult patients with suspected long COVID who continue to experience unexplained cardiac symptoms.

Complications Following Elective Major Noncardiac Surgery Among Patients With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: There is an urgent need for evidence to inform preoperative risk assessment for the millions of people who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection and are awaiting elective surgery, which is critical to surgical care planning and informed consent. Objective: To assess the association of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization after elective major noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included adults who had received a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 months prior to elective major noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada, between April 2020 and October 2021, with 30 days follow-up. Exposures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the composite of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause rehospitalization within 30 days after surgery. Results: Of 71 144 patients who underwent elective major noncardiac surgery (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-73 years]; 59.8% female), 960 had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (1.3%) and 70 184 had negative test results (98.7%). Prior infection was not associated with the composite risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization within 30 days of elective major noncardiac surgery (5.3% absolute event rate [n = 3770]; 960 patients with a positive test result; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21). There was also no association between prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 and postoperative outcomes when the time between infection and surgery was less than 4 weeks (aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.64-2.09) or less than 7 weeks (aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61) and among those who were previously vaccinated (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or rehospitalization following elective major noncardiac surgery, although low event rates and wide 95% CIs do not preclude a potentially meaningful increase in overall risk.

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.

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.