"Everything has been tried and his heart can't recover ": A Descriptive Review of "Do Everything!" in the Archive of Ontario Consent and Capacity Board.

BACKGROUND: In end-of-life situations, the phrase "do everything" is sometimes invoked by physicians, patients, or substitute decision-makers (SDM), though its meaning is ambiguous. We examined instances of the phrase "do everything" in the archive of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) in Canada, a tribunal with judicial authority to adjudicate physician-patient conflicts in order to explore its potential meanings. METHODS: We systematically searched the CCB's online public archive from its inception to 2018 for any references to "do everything" in the context of critical care medicine and end-of-life care. Two independent assessors reviewed decisions, collected characteristics, and identified key themes. RESULTS: Of 598 cases in the archive, 41 referred to "do everything" in end-of-life situations. The phrase was overwhelmingly invoked by SDMs (38/41, 93%), typically to advocate for life-prolonging measures that contradicted physician advice. Physicians generally related "doing everything" to describe the interventions they had already performed (3/41, 7%), using it to recommend focusing on patients' quality of life. SDMs were generally reluctant to accept death, whereas physicians found prolonging life at all costs to be morally distressing. The CCB did not interpret appeals to "do everything" legally but followed existing laws by deferring to patients' prior wishes whenever known, or to concepts of "best interests" when not. The CCB generally recommended against life-prolonging measures in these cases (26/41, 63%), focusing on patients' "well-being" and "best interests." CONCLUSIONS: In this unique sample of cases involving conflict surrounding resuscitation and end-of-life care, references to "do everything" highlighted conflicts over quantity versus quality of life. These appeals were associated with signs of cognitive distress on the behalf of SDMs who were facing the prospect of a patient's death, whereas physicians identified moral distress related to the prolongation of patients' suffering through their use of life-sustaining interventions. This divergence in perspectives on death versus suffering was consistently the locus of conflict. These findings support the importance of tools such as the Serious Illness Conversation Guide that can be used by physicians to direct conversations on the patients' goals, wishes, trade-offs, and to recommend a treatment plan that may include palliative care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Many trials of hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 were redundant and potentially unethical: an analysis of the NIH clinical trials registry.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to map the landscape of trials investigating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in order to draw conclusions about how clinical trials have been conducted in the pandemic environment and offer potential regulatory recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified and captured data related to registered studies using HCQ to treat SARS-CoV-2 registered with the publicly available National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Trials Registry between February and November 2020. RESULTS: Between February and November 2020, 206 studies investigating HCQ in SARS-CoV-2 were registered with the NIH Clinical Trials Registry. As of November 2020, 135 studies were listed as ongoing, 22 have been completed, and 46 are either suspended or have been terminated. Reasons for suspension or termination included difficulties with patient recruitment (n = 9), emerging evidence showing a lack of benefit of HCQ (n = 7), and recommendations by regulatory boards to discontinue (n = 10). CONCLUSION: Many clinical trials of HCQ were launched in the first months of the pandemic, and a significant proportion of them remained active as of November 2020. The medical community appears to have responded very quickly to political interest in HCQ, while responding much more slowly to the evolving medical evidence of its lack of efficacy.

Physician preparedness for resource allocation decisions under pandemic conditions: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian physicians, April 2020.

BACKGROUND: Under the pandemic conditions created by the novel coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19), physicians have faced difficult choices allocating scarce resources, including but not limited to critical care beds and ventilators. Past experiences with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and current reports suggest that making these decisions carries a heavy emotional toll for physicians around the world. We sought to explore Canadian physicians' preparedness and attitudes regarding resource allocation decisions. METHODS: From April 3 to April 13, 2020, we conducted an 8-question online survey of physicians practicing in the region of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, organized around 4 themes: physician preparedness for resource rationing, physician preparedness to offer palliative care, attitudes towards resource allocation policy, and approaches to resource allocation decision-making. RESULTS: We collected 219 responses, of which 165 were used for analysis. The majority (78%) of respondents felt "somewhat" or "a little prepared" to make resource allocation decisions, and 13% felt "not at all prepared." A majority of respondents (63%) expected the provision of palliative care to be "very" or "somewhat difficult." Most respondents (83%) either strongly or somewhat agreed that there should be policy to guide resource allocation. Physicians overwhelmingly agreed on certain factors that would be important in resource allocation, including whether patients were likely to survive, and whether they had dementia and other significant comorbidities. Respondents generally did not feel confident that they would have the social support they needed at the time of making resource allocation decisions. INTERPRETATION: This rapidly implemented survey suggests that a sample of Canadian physicians feel underprepared to make resource allocation decisions, and desire both more emotional support and clear, transparent, evidence-based policy.