Call to action: The need to expand spiritual care supports during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Providing a 'good death' for patients dying in acute care is more challenging than ever with the COVID-19 pandemic. Spiritual care teams and palliative care providers strive to address the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual care needs at end of life-for both patients and their families, and often in concert with patients' own faith groups. During the strict lockdown policy imposed in Ontario, Canada during the pandemic, external faith groups, and religious rituals requiring direct contact were restricted. Delivering spiritual care in our "new normal" environment challenged us to think more broadly, beyond the walls of our own institutions, particularly when external resources exist outside of acute care centres, and are often of paramount importance to dying patients and their families in acute care.

The Comfort Measures Order Set at a Tertiary Care Academic Hospital: Is There a Comparable Difference in End-of-Life Care Between Patients Dying in Acute Care When CMOS Is Utilized?

BACKGROUND: Standardized protocols have been previously shown to be helpful in managing end-of-life (EOL) care in hospital. The comfort measures order set (CMOS), a standardized framework for assessing imminently dying patients' symptoms and needs, was implemented at a tertiary academic hospital. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether there were comparable differences in the care of a dying patient when the CMOS was utilized and when it was not. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed on patients admitted under oncology and general internal medicine, who were referred to the inpatient palliative care team for "EOL care" between February 2015 and March 2016. RESULTS: Of 83 patients, 56 (67%) received intiation of the CMOS and 27 (33%) did not for EOL care. There was significant involvement of spiritual care with the CMOS (66%), as compared to the group without CMOS (19%), P < .05. The use of CMOS resulted in 1.7 adjustments to symptom management per patient by palliative care, which was significantly less than the number of symptom management adjustments per patient when CMOS was not used (3.3), P < .05. However, initiating CMOS did not result in a signficant difference in patient distress around the time of death ( P = .11). Dyspnea was the most frequently identified symptom causing distress in actively dying patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CMOS is helpful in providing a foundation to a comfort approach in imminently dying patients. However, more education on its utility as a framework for EOL care and assessment across the organization is still required.

Improving end-of-life care through quality improvement.

Although end of life (EoL) care has been identified as an area for quality improvement in hospitals, the quality of care Canadian patients receive at the end of life is not well-evidenced. National statistics indicate that Canadians would prefer to die at home, yet more than 50% die in acute care hospital settings. Busy and often highly specialised acute care units may be perceived as a distressing place of death for both patients and their families. Furthermore, many clinicians are not trained in diagnosing imminent dying, managing symptoms at the end of life or supporting dying patients and their families. As such, to improve the experience of EoL care, a corporate, institution-wide strategy entitled the Quality Dying Initiative was introduced and implemented across a tertiary care academic teaching hospital. A primary focus of this initiative was the implementation of a comprehensive Comfort Measures Strategy. This strategy involved the development of an evidence-based order set, which included elements of symptom assessment and management, patient and family education, and spiritual and emotional support. Staff education and mentoring was also a critical element of the larger Comfort Measures Strategy, as well as an evaluative component.

Factors affecting family satisfaction with inpatient end-of-life care.

BACKGROUND: Little data exists addressing satisfaction with end-of-life care among hospitalized patients, as they and their family members are systematically excluded from routine satisfaction surveys. It is imperative that we closely examine patient and institution factors associated with quality end-of-life care and determine high-priority target areas for quality improvement. METHODS: Between September 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012 the Canadian Health care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) Bereavement Questionnaire was mailed to the next-of-kin of recently deceased inpatients to seek factors associated with satisfaction with end-of-life care. The primary outcome was the global rating of satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included rates of actual versus preferred location of death, associations between demographic factors and global satisfaction, and identification of targets for quality improvement. RESULTS: Response rate was 33% among 275 valid addresses. Overall, 67.4% of respondents were very or completely satisfied with the overall quality of care their relative received. However, 71.4% of respondents who thought their relative did not die in their preferred location favoured an out-of-hospital location of death. A common location of death was the intensive care unit (45.7%); however, this was not the preferred location of death for 47.6% of such patients. Multivariate Poisson regression analysis showed respondents who believed their relative died in their preferred location were 1.7 times more likely to be satisfied with the end-of-life care that was provided (p = 0.001). Items identified as high-priority targets for improvement included: relationships with, and characteristics of health care professionals; illness management; communication; and end-of-life decision-making. INTERPRETATION: Nearly three-quarters of recently deceased inpatients would have preferred an out-of-hospital death. Intensive care units were a common, but not preferred, location of in-hospital deaths. Family satisfaction with end-of-life care was strongly associated with their relative dying in their preferred location. Improved communication regarding end-of-life care preferences should be a high-priority quality improvement target.

A multidisciplinary bone metastases clinic at Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre - A review of the experience from 1999 to 2005.

Our objective in this study was to review the experience of a one-stop multidisciplinary bone metastases clinic (BMC) that offers a coordinated multidisciplinary approach to the care of cancer patients with bone metastases in a tertiary cancer centre. Patients with symptomatic bone metastases were referred to BMC and assessed by a team of specialists in various disciplines - interventional radiology, orthopedic surgery, palliative medicine, and radiation oncology. At initial consultation, patient demographics, reasons for referral, and case disposition were recorded. From January 1999 to February 2005, a total of 272 patients with bone metastases were referred to the BMC. The median age was 65 years (range 28-95) and median KPS score at consultation was 60 (range 30-90). The majority of patients came from home (74%), while others came from a nursing home or the hospital (9%). Almost a third (28%) of patients had 2 or more reasons of referral, yielding a total of 354 reasons. The most common reason for referral was bone pain (42%), bone metastases (21%), high risk for pathological fracture (12%), and pathological fracture (10%). Of the 272 patients who received consultation, 40% received palliative radiotherapy, 19% received interventional surgery, 7% were referred to other support services such as palliative care, physiotherapy, and 7% had further investigation or imaging. A multidisciplinary clinic is useful for co-coordinating the management of bone metastatic disease in symptomatic patients.