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.

Characteristics and Health Care Use of Patients Attending Virtual Walk-in Clinics in Ontario, Canada: Cross-sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Funding changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic supported the growth of direct-to-consumer virtual walk-in clinics in several countries. Little is known about patients who attend virtual walk-in clinics or how these clinics contribute to care continuity and subsequent health care use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to describe the characteristics and measure the health care use of patients who attended virtual walk-in clinics compared to the general population and a subset that received any virtual family physician visit. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study in Ontario, Canada. Patients who had received a family physician visit at 1 of 13 selected virtual walk-in clinics from April 1 to December 31, 2020, were compared to Ontario residents who had any virtual family physician visit. The main outcome was postvisit health care use. RESULTS: Virtual walk-in patients (n=132,168) had fewer comorbidities and lower previous health care use than Ontarians with any virtual family physician visit. Virtual walk-in patients were also less likely to have a subsequent in-person visit with the same physician (309/132,168, 0.2% vs 704,759/6,412,304, 11%; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48), more likely to have a subsequent virtual visit (40,030/132,168, 30.3% vs 1,403,778/6,412,304, 21.9%; SMD 0.19), and twice as likely to have an emergency department visit within 30 days (11,003/132,168, 8.3% vs 262,509/6,412,304, 4.1%; SMD 0.18), an effect that persisted after adjustment and across urban/rural resident groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Ontarians attending any family physician virtual visit, virtual walk-in patients were less likely to have a subsequent in-person physician visit and were more likely to visit the emergency department. These findings will inform policy makers aiming to ensure the integration of virtual visits with longitudinal primary care.

Chronic Pain and Opioid Prescribing: Three Ways for Navigating Complexity at the Clinical‒Population Health Interface.

Clinically focused interventions for people living with pain, such as health professional education, clinical decision support systems, prescription drug monitoring programs, and multidisciplinary care to support opioid tapering, have all been promoted as important solutions to the North American opioid crisis. Yet none have so far delivered substantive beneficial opioid-related population health outcomes. In fact, while total opioid prescribing has leveled off or reduced in many jurisdictions, population-level harms from opioids have continued to increase dramatically. We attribute this failure partly to a poor recognition of the epistemic and ethical complexities at the interface of clinical and population health. We draw on a framework of knowledge networks in wicked problems to identify 3 strategies to help navigate these complexities: (1) designing and evaluating clinically focused interventions as complex interventions, (2) reformulating evidence to make population health dynamics apparent, and (3) appealing to the inseparability of facts and values to support decision-making in uncertainty. We advocate that applying these strategies will better equip clinically focused interventions as complements to structural and public health interventions to achieve the desired beneficial population health effects. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S56-S65. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306500).

Quality of primary care among individuals receiving treatment for opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if people receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT), a long-term treatment approach, are also receiving high-quality primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Recipients of public drug benefits who had at least 6 months of continuous use of methadone or buprenorphine between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of cancer screening and diabetes monitoring among those who had at least 6 months of continuous OAT were compared with matched controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to assess differences after adjusting for confounders. In secondary analyses, outcomes by type of OAT and factors related to health care delivery were compared. RESULTS: A cohort of 20 406 OAT patients was identified; they had a mean (SD) of 31 (15) physician clinic visits during the 6-month study period. Compared with the control group, OAT patients were less likely to receive screening for cervical cancer (48.7% vs 62.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] of 0.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.36), breast cancer (23.3% vs 49.1%; AOR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.24), and colorectal cancer (32.5% vs 49.0%; AOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.38), and less likely to have monitoring for diabetes (11.7% vs 28.5%; AOR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.21). Patients receiving OAT who were taking buprenorphine, enrolled in a medical home, or seeing a low-volume prescriber were generally more likely to receive cancer screening and diabetes monitoring. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving OAT were less likely to receive chronic disease prevention and management than matched controls were despite frequent health care visits, indicating a gap in equitable access to primary care.

Opioid agonist therapy during residential treatment of opioid use disorder: Cohort study on access and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine access to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for those entering residential treatment for opioid use disorder; to report on treatment outcomes for those taking OAT and those not taking OAT; and to determine the association between OAT use and residential treatment completion. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with opioid use disorder admitted to publicly funded residential treatment programs in the province of Ontario between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access to OAT during residential treatment using descriptive statistics. Treatment outcomes (ie, completed the program, voluntarily left early, involuntary discharged, and other) for the entire cohort and for the OAT and non-OAT groups using descriptive statistics. Association between OAT use at admission and treatment completion (a binary outcome) using bivariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Among an identified cohort of 1910 patients with opioid use disorder, 52.8% entered programs that permitted access to OAT. Overall, 56.8% of patients completed treatment, 23.3% voluntarily left early (eg, were no-shows, dropped out), 17.0% were involuntarily discharged, and 2.9% were discharged early for other reasons. Those taking OAT were as likely to complete treatment as those not taking OAT (53.9% vs 57.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio of 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates 2 large gaps in care for patients with opioid use disorder. First, these patients have poor access to OAT-the first-line treatment of opioid use disorder-while in publicly funded residential treatment programs; and second, many are involuntarily discharged from treatment. Additionally, this study indicates that patients taking OAT have similar likelihood of completing residential treatment as those not taking OAT do. Limitations of this study are that it is based on observational data for patients who self-selected before admission to use OAT or not, and it is likely not all confounders were accounted for.

First-line medications for alcohol use disorders among public drug plan beneficiaries in Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: To examine use of first-line alcohol use disorder (AUD) medications (naltrexone and acamprosate) among public drug plan beneficiaries in the year following an AUD diagnosis. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals eligible for public drug plan benefits who had an AUD diagnosis at a hospital visit between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of AUD medications dispensed to public drug plan beneficiaries who had a recent hospital visit with an AUD diagnosis, and number of prescriptions dispensed per person. RESULTS: A total of 10 394 Ontarians between 18 and 65 years of age were identified who had a hospital visit with an AUD diagnosis and were eligible for public drug plan benefits. The rate of AUD medications dispensed in the subsequent year was 3.56 per 1000 population (95% CI 2.51 to 4.91; n = 37). This rate did not differ significantly by sex (P = .83). CONCLUSION: Very few public drug plan beneficiaries are dispensed first-line AUD medications in the year following an AUD diagnosis.

Primary care management of alcohol use disorder and at-risk drinking: Part 1: screening and assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To provide primary care physicians with evidence-based information and advice on the screening and assessment of at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD). A companion article outlines the management of at-risk drinking and AUD. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We conducted a nonsystematic literature review, using search terms on primary care, AUD, alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol misuse, unhealthy drinking, and primary care screening, identification, and assessment. MAIN MESSAGE: Family physicians should screen all patients at least yearly for unhealthy drinking with a validated screening test. Screen patients who present with medical or psychosocial problems that might be related to alcohol use. Determine if patients who have positive screening results are at-risk drinkers or have AUD. If patients have AUD, categorize it as mild, moderate, or severe using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, criteria. Share this diagnosis with the patient and offer assistance. Do a further assessment for patients with AUD. Screen for other substance use, concurrent disorders, and trauma. Determine whether there is a need to report to child protection services or the Ministry of Transportation. Determine the need for medical management of alcohol withdrawal. Conduct a brief physical examination and order laboratory tests to assess complete blood count and liver transaminase levels, including γ-glutamyl transpeptidase. CONCLUSION: Primary care is well suited to screening and assessment of alcohol misuse.

Primary care management of alcohol use disorder and at-risk drinking: Part 2: counsel, prescribe, connect.

OBJECTIVE: To provide primary care physicians with evidence-based information and advice on the management of at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD). SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We conducted a nonsystematic literature review using search terms that included primary care; screening, interventions, management, and treatment; and at-risk drinking, alcohol use disorders, alcohol dependence, and alcohol abuse; as well as specific medical and counseling interventions of relevance to primary care. MAIN MESSAGE: For their patients with at-risk drinking and AUD, physicians should counsel and, when indicated (ie, in patients with moderate or severe AUD), prescribe and connect. Counsel: Offer all patients with at-risk drinking a brief counseling session and follow-up. Offer all patients with AUD counseling sessions and ongoing (frequent and regular) follow-up. Prescribe: Offer medications (disulfiram, naltrexone, acamprosate) to all patients with moderate or severe AUD. Connect: Encourage patients with AUD to attend counseling, day or residential treatment programs, and support groups. If indicated, refer patients to an addiction medicine physician, concurrent mental health and addiction services, or specialized trauma therapy. CONCLUSION: Family physicians can effectively manage patients with at-risk drinking and AUD.

Approach to cannabis use disorder in primary care: focus on youth and other high-risk users.

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical features and complications of at-risk cannabis use and cannabis use disorder, and to outline an office-based protocol for screening, identifying, and managing this disorder. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: PubMed was searched for controlled trials, observational studies, and reviews on cannabis use among adolescents and young adults; cannabis-related medical and psychiatric harms; cannabis use disorder and its treatment; and lower-risk cannabis use guidelines. MAIN MESSAGE: Physicians should ask all patients about cannabis use. They should ask adolescents and young adults and those at highest risk of cannabis-related harms (those with concurrent psychiatric or substance use disorders) more frequently. Physicians should also ask about cannabis use in patients who have problems that could be caused by cannabis, such as mood disorders, psychosis, and respiratory symptoms. In patients who report cannabis use, physicians should inquire about frequency and amount, tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, attempts to reduce use, and cannabis-related harms. Lower-risk cannabis users smoke, inhale, or ingest cannabis occasionally without evidence of school, work, or social dysfunction; those with problematic use often use cannabis daily or almost daily, have difficulty reducing their use, and have impaired school, work, or social functioning. Physicians should offer all patients with problematic use brief advice and counseling, focusing on the health effects of cannabis and setting a goal of abstinence (some higher-risk groups should not use cannabis at all) or reduced use, and they should provide practical strategies to reduce cannabis use. Physicians should incorporate simple motivational interviewing techniques into the counseling sessions. They should refer those patients who are unable to reduce use or who are experiencing harms from cannabis use to specialized care, while ensuring those patients remain connected to primary care. As well, physicians should give information on lower-risk cannabis use to all cannabis users. CONCLUSION: Physicians should screen all patients in their practices at least once for cannabis use, especially those who have problems that might be caused by cannabis. Physicians should screen those at higher risk more often, at least annually. Lower-risk cannabis use should be distinguished from problematic use. Brief counseling should be provided to those with problematic use; these patients should be referred to specialists if they are unable to reduce or cease use.

Prescribing smoked cannabis for chronic noncancer pain: preliminary recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To offer preliminary guidance on prescribing smoked cannabis for chronic pain before the release of formal guidelines. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: We reviewed the literature on the analgesic effectiveness of smoked cannabis and the harms of medical and recreational cannabis use. We developed recommendations on indications, contraindications, precautions, and dosing of smoked cannabis, and categorized the recommendations based on levels of evidence. Evidence is mostly level II (well conducted observational studies) and III (expert opinion). MAIN MESSAGE: Smoked cannabis might be indicated for patients with severe neuropathic pain conditions who have not responded to adequate trials of pharmaceutical cannabinoids and standard analgesics (level II evidence). Smoked cannabis is contraindicated in patients who are 25 years of age or younger (level II evidence); who have a current, past, or strong family history of psychosis (level II evidence); who have a current or past cannabis use disorder (level III evidence); who have a current substance use disorder (level III evidence); who have cardiovascular or respiratory disease (level III evidence); or who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant (level II evidence). It should be used with caution in patients who smoke tobacco (level II evidence), who are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (level III evidence), who have anxiety or mood disorders (level II evidence), or who are taking higher doses of opioids or benzodiazepines (level III evidence). Cannabis users should be advised not to drive for at least 3 to 4 hours after smoking, for at least 6 hours after oral ingestion, and for at least 8 hours if they experience a subjective "high" (level II evidence). The maximum recommended dose is 1 inhalation 4 times per day (approximately 400 mg per day) of dried cannabis containing 9% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (level III evidence). Physicians should avoid referring patients to "cannabinoid" clinics (level III evidence). CONCLUSION: Future guidelines should be based on systematic review of the literature on the safety and effectiveness of smoked cannabis. Further research is needed on the effectiveness and long-term safety of smoked cannabis compared with pharmaceutical cannabinoids, opioids, and other standard analgesics.

How the commercial virtual care industry gathers, uses and values patient data: a Canadian qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand and report on the direct-to-consumer virtual care industry in Canada, focusing on how companies collect, use and value patient data. DESIGN: Qualitative study using situational analysis methodology. SETTING: Canadian for-profit virtual care industry. PARTICIPANTS: 18 individuals employed by or affiliated with the Canadian virtual care industry. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted between October 2021 and January 2022 and publicly available documents on websites of commercial virtual care platforms were retrieved. Analysis was informed by situational analysis, a constructivist grounded theory methodology, with a continuous and iterative process of data collection and analysis; theoretical sampling and creation of theoretical concepts to explain findings. RESULTS: Participants described how companies in the virtual care industry highly valued patient data. Companies used data collected as patients accessed virtual care platforms and registered for services to generate revenue, often by marketing other products and services. In some cases, virtual care companies were funded by pharmaceutical companies to analyse data collected when patients interacted with a healthcare provider and adjust care pathways with the goal of increasing uptake of a drug or vaccine. Participants described these business practices as expected and appropriate, but some were concerned about patient privacy, industry influence over care and risks to marginalised communities. They described how patients may have agreed to these uses of their data because of high levels of trust in the Canadian health system, problematic consent processes and a lack of other options for care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers should be aware that the direct-to-consumer virtual care industry in Canada highly values patient data and appears to view data as a revenue stream. The industry's data handling practices of this sensitive information, in the context of providing a health service, have implications for patient privacy, autonomy and quality of care.

Commercializing Personal Health Information: A Critical Qualitative Content Analysis of Documents Describing Proprietary Primary Care Databases in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Commercial data brokers have amassed large collections of primary care patient data in proprietary databases. Our study objective was to critically analyze how entities involved in the collection and use of these records construct the value of these proprietary databases. We also discuss the implications of the collection and use of these databases. METHODS: We conducted a critical qualitative content analysis using publicly available documents describing the creation and use of proprietary databases containing Canadian primary care patient data. We identified relevant commercial data brokers, as well as entities involved in collecting data or in using data from these databases. We sampled documents associated with these entities that described any aspect of the collection, processing, and use of the proprietary databases. We extracted data from each document using a structured data tool. We conducted an interpretive thematic content analysis by inductively coding documents and the extracted data. RESULTS: We analyzed 25 documents produced between 2013 and 2021. These documents were largely directed at the pharmaceutical industry, as well as shareholders, academics, and governments. The documents constructed the value of the proprietary databases by describing extensive, intimate, detailed patient-level data holdings. They provided examples of how the databases could be used by pharmaceutical companies for regulatory approval, marketing and understanding physician behaviour. The documents constructed the value of these data more broadly by claiming to improve health for patients, while also addressing risks to privacy. Some documents referred to the trade-offs between patient privacy and data utility, which suggests these considerations may be in tension. CONCLUSION: Documents in our analysis positioned the proprietary databases as socially legitimate and valuable, particularly to pharmaceutical companies. The databases, however, may pose risks to patient privacy and contribute to problematic drug promotion. Solutions include expanding public data repositories with appropriate governance and external regulatory oversight.

Enterprise Healthcare Physician Services in Canada: An Environmental Scan.

Employers in Canada are increasingly offering physician services to their employees through third-party "enterprise" virtual care platforms. In our environmental scan, we identified nine enterprise healthcare companies offering physician services to millions of Canadian employees via enterprise platforms. All platforms offered rapid access to virtual physician services. Some offered in-person visits, access to specialists, health system navigation and sharing of information with an employee's regular care provider. Almost half shared aggregate or de-identified health data with employers. These platforms provide rapid and convenient access to physician services but also disrupt the continuity of care, pose risks to employee privacy and expand two-tiered healthcare.

Virtual Visits With Own Family Physician vs Outside Family Physician and Emergency Department Use.

Importance: Virtual visits became more common after the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear in what context they are best used. Objective: To investigate whether there was a difference in subsequent emergency department use between patients who had a virtual visit with their own family physician vs those who had virtual visits with an outside physician. Design, Setting, and Participants: This propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted among all Ontario residents attached to a family physician as of April 1, 2021, who had a virtual family physician visit in the subsequent year (to March 31, 2022). Exposure: The type of virtual family physician visit, with own or outside physician, was determined. In a secondary analysis, own physician visits were compared with visits with a physician working in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was an emergency department visit within 7 days after the virtual visit. Results: Among 5 229 240 Ontario residents with a family physician and virtual visit, 4 173 869 patients (79.8%) had a virtual encounter with their own physician (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [21.5] years; 2 420 712 females [58.0%]) and 1 055 371 patients (20.2%) had an encounter with an outside physician (mean [SD] age, 41.8 [20.9] years; 605 614 females [57.4%]). In the matched cohort of 1 885 966 patients, those who saw an outside physician were 66% more likely to visit an emergency department within 7 days than those who had a virtual visit with their own physician (30 748 of 942 983 patients [3.3%] vs 18 519 of 942 983 patients [2.0%]; risk difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 1.2%-1.3%]; relative risk, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.63-1.69]). The increase in the risk of emergency department visits was greater when comparing 30 216 patients with definite direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits with 30 216 patients with own physician visits (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.8%-4.5%]; relative risk, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.74-3.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients whose virtual visit was with an outside physician were more likely to visit an emergency department in the next 7 days than those whose virtual visit was with their own family physician. These findings suggest that primary care virtual visits may be best used within an existing clinical relationship.