Perceptions and Impact of the 2017 Canadian Guideline for Opioid Therapy and Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of Canadian Physicians.

Background: Physician adherence to guideline recommendations for the use of opioids to manage chronic pain is often limited. Objective: In February 2018, we administered a 28-item online survey to explore perceptions of the 2017 Canadian guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain and if physicians had altered practices in response to recommendations. Results: We invited 34,322 Canadian physicians to complete our survey, and 1,128 responded for a response rate of 3%; 687 respondents indicated they prescribed opioids for noncancer pain and answered survey questions about the guideline and their practice. Almost all were aware of the guideline, 94% had read the document, and 89% endorsed the clarity as good or excellent. The majority (86%) felt the guideline was feasible to implement, but 66% highlighted resistance by patients, and 63% the lack of access to effective nonopioid treatment as barriers. Thirty-six percent of respondents mistakenly believed the guideline recommended mandatory tapering for patients using high-dose opioid therapy (≥90 mg morphine equivalent per day), and 58% felt they would benefit from support for opioid tapering. Seventy percent of respondents had changed practices to align with guideline recommendations, with 51% engaging some high-dose patients in opioid tapering and 43% reducing the number of new opioid starts. Conclusion: There was high awareness of the 2017 Canadian opioid guideline among respondents, and preliminary evidence that recommendations have changed practice to better align with the evidence. Ongoing education is required to avoid the misunderstanding that opioid tapering is mandatory, and research to identify effective strategies to manage chronic noncancer pain is urgently needed.

Ethics Guide Recommendations for Organ-Donation-Focused Physicians: Endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association.

Donation physicians are specialists with expertise in organ and tissue donation and have been recognized internationally as a key contributor to improving organ and tissue donation services. Subsequent to a 2011 Canadian Critical Care Society-Canadian Blood Services consultation, the donation physician role has been gradually implemented in Canada. These professionals are generally intensive care unit physicians with an enhanced focus and expertise in organ/tissue donation. They must manage the dual obligation of caring for dying patients and their families while providing and/or improving organ donation services. In anticipation of actual, potential or perceived ethical challenges with the role, Canadian Blood Services in partnership with the Canadian Medical Association organized the development of an evidence-informed consensus process of donation experts and bioethicists to produce an ethics guide. This guide includes overarching principles and benefits of the DP role, and recommendations in regard to communication with families, role disclosure, consent discussions, interprofessional conflicts, conscientious objection, death determination, donation specific clinical practices in neurological determination of death and donation after circulatory death, end-of-life care, performance metrics, resources and remuneration. Although this report is intended to inform donation physician practices, it is recognized that the recommendations may have applicability to other professionals (eg, physicians in intensive care, emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, pulmonology) who may also participate in the end-of-life care of potential donors in various clinical settings. It is hoped that this guidance will assist practitioners and their sponsoring organizations in preserving their duty of care, protecting the interests of dying patients, and fulfilling best practices for organ and tissue donation.

Canadian physicians' responses to cross border health care.

BACKGROUND: The idea for this survey emanated from desk research and two meetings for researchers that discussed medical tourism and out-of-country health care, which were convened by some of the authors of this article (VR, CP and RL). METHODS: A Cross Border Health Care Survey was drafted by a number of the authors and administered to Canadian physicians via the Canadian Medical Association's e-panel. The purpose of the survey was to gain an understanding of physicians' experiences with and views of their patients acquiring health care out of country, either as medical tourists (paying out-of-pocket for their care) or out-of-country care patients funded by provincial/territorial public health insurance plans. Quantitative and qualitative results of the survey were analyzed. RESULTS: 631 physicians responded to the survey. Diagnostic procedures were the top-ranked procedure for patients either as out-of-country care recipients or medical tourists. Respondents reported that the main reason why patients sought care abroad was because waiting times in Canada were too long. Some respondents were frustrated with a lack of information about out-of-country procedures upon their patients' return to Canada. The majority of physician respondents agreed that it was their responsibility to provide follow-up care to medical travellers on return to Canada, although a substantial minority disagreed that they had such a responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-border health care, whether government-sanctioned (out-of-country-care) or patient-initiated (medical tourism), is increasing in Canada. Such flows are thought likely to increase with aging populations. Government-sanctioned outbound flows are less problematic than patient-initiated flows but are constrained by low approval rates, which may increase patient initiation. Lack of information and post-return complications pose the greatest concern to Canadian physicians. Further research on both types of flows (government-sanctioned and patient-initiated), and how they affect the Canadian health system, can contribute to a more informed debate about the role of cross-border health care in the future, and how it might be organized and regulated.

Canadian Medical Association Perspectives on End-of-Life in Canada.

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is the representative body for the physicians of Canada. Over the past year, the association has been devoting significant time and resources to considering the important issues involved in care at the end of life. It has conducted a series of public town hall meetings across the country to allow Canadians to express their view on these issues, the only organization to have done so. The CMA will be appearing before the Supreme Court in the Carter case in October 2014 as a "friend of the court" and will continue to represent the views of the medical profession in these complex and difficult areas.

What do Canadians think about physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions?

BACKGROUND: Many health professional and regulatory groups have guidelines for identifying, disclosing and managing potential conflicts of interest (COI). The opinions of the Canadian public regarding what constitutes COI are unknown. METHODS: Bilingual telephone survey in all provinces using a validated questionnaire on public opinions on physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions (POPPII). Adults 18 years or older were contacted using random digit dialing (RDD) with representative national sampling of households. Results were analyzed for predictors of opinions and were compared with the reference COI guideline. Two follow-up focus groups were held. RESULTS: 1041 participants (56.8% female, mean age 52.6 years (SD 16.5), 18.2% francophone, 57.7% with post-secondary education) completed the survey. 34.0% reported a prior concern about physician-pharmaceutical industry relationships. Acceptability of interactions varied from high for requesting information about a particular drug or small gifts of obvious educational value to the patient, to mixed for free meals to listen to pharmaceutical industry personnel or payment to attend a conference, to low for research recruitment fees, personal use of medication samples or for using information not yet public about a new drug to make investment decisions. Age of the participant influenced ratings of acceptability. There was reasonable agreement (>60% participants) with only half of the related reference COI guideline statements. CONCLUSIONS: Public opinions on physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions differ depending on the scenario but suggest a significant level of concern regarding interactions involving direct financial benefit to physicians.

Refusal to eat, capacity, and ethics in stroke patients: a report of 3 cases.

Patients have the right to make decisions about their health care, including refusing a particular treatment or a life-sustaining activity such as eating. However, patients must be able to understand and appreciate the consequences of their actions. Brain injury caused by a stroke has the potential to affect people's capacity to understand and appreciate their particular medical condition or its consequences. The purpose of this report was to describe the unique medical and ethical challenges presented by 3 rehabilitating stroke patients who refused to eat. Two patients had left-hemisphere strokes, with resultant aphasia. The third patient had a right-brain stroke and was able to state his position verbally but denied many of the consequences of his stroke. The refusal to eat and, therefore, possible impending death forced the attending physiatrist and rehabilitation team members to reevaluate the issue of capacity in the stroke patient. None of the patients died, and oral intake varied from fair to poor. This report elucidates the particular diagnostic, management, legal, and ethical issues surrounding the difficult but likely not uncommon issue of refusal to eat in stroke patients. It highlights the concept of capacity, which guides clinical decision making in such patients, and suggests specific clinical courses of action to take.

Concordance in goal setting between patients with multiple sclerosis and their rehabilitation team.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the concordance between patients with multiple sclerosis and their clinical team members on the identification of goals for an inpatient rehabilitation stay. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of patients admitted for rehabilitation in an adult inpatient neurospinal unit at a Rehabilitation Centre in Ottawa, Canada. Twenty-seven patients (11 men and 16 women, mean age of 45.3 yrs) with either a laboratory or a clinically supported diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Patients rated 55 goals from a preexisting list, indicating the importance of each goal to be addressed during the inpatient stay. The goals fell into five broad domains of health/medical issues, daily activities, mobility, community life, and personal well-being. Patients also identified their five most important individual goals. In a separate session, the clinical team also rated the 55 goals in relation to each patient and identified an independent list of the five most important rehabilitation goals. Main outcome measures included concordance between patient and team ratings in the identification of goals, ratings of the likelihood of success of achieving each goal, and ratings of the amount of change required to realize a minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: The patients and the team agreed on an average of 1.7 of the patient's five top-rated goals. Compared with the team, patients gave higher importance ratings to goals within the health/medical, mobility, and daily activities domains. They also considered that a greater average improvement would be required to achieve a meaningful benefit, and they gave higher ratings of the likelihood of success in achieving their selected goals. CONCLUSION: Patients with multiple sclerosis and clinical team members do not necessarily agree on specific goals for a rehabilitation stay. Patients may also have greater expectations than clinicians with respect to the amount of improvement and the likelihood of achieving their goals.

Autonomic dysreflexia and telehealth.

With the rapid expansion of telehealth lines in the United States and the establishment of provincially funded lines in Canada, a growing number of people use this convenient approach to establish their initial health needs and to pursue self-care. Telehealth providers, for the most part, rely on electronic protocols to offer triaging and advice. Unfortunately, standard protocols are misleading when a premorbid health condition such as a spinal cord injury is present. Symptoms such as a headache, diaphoresis or an elevated blood pressure, which are common occurrences in the general population, may indicate an emergency situation, namely autonomic dysreflexia (AD), when a mid-thoracic and higher spinal cord lesion is present. Since there is no available electronic protocol on AD, this emergency health condition is not recognized by the telehealth provider and may put the caller at risk of serious morbidity or even death. In this article, the authors present the clinical features of AD, the precipitating factors and the nursing management of an episode. The merits and pitfalls of electronic protocols are reviewed and an algorithm is presented to assist telehealth providers in recognizing AD.

Rehabilitation medicine: 1. Autonomic dysreflexia.

Autonomic dysreflexia is an acute syndrome of excessive, uncontrolled sympathetic output that can occur in patients who have had an injury to the spinal cord (generally at or above the sixth thoracic neurologic level). It is caused by spinal reflex mechanisms that remain intact despite the patient's injury, leading to hypertension. This review describes the clinical features of autonomic dysreflexia, its common causes (most frequently stimulation of the lower urinary tract) and a recommended approach to treatment. The condition can nearly always be managed successfully, but prompt recognition is essential--without treatment there may be dire consequences, including death.

The unique ethical challenges of conducting research in the rehabilitation medicine population.

BACKGROUND: The broad topic of research ethics is one which has been relatively well-investigated and discussed. Unique ethical issues have been identified for such populations as pediatrics, where the issues of consent and assent have received much attention, and obstetrics, with concerns such as the potential for research to cause harm to the fetus. However, little has been written about ethical concerns which are relatively unique to the population of patients seen by the practitioner of rehabilitation medicine. DISCUSSION: This paper reviews unique ethical concerns in conducting research in this population, including decision-making capacity, communication, the potential for subject overuse, the timing of recruitment, hope for a cure and therapeutic misconception and the nature of the health care provider-research subject relationship. SUMMARY: Researchers in the area of rehabilitation medicine should be aware of some of the unique ethical challenges posed by this patient population and should take steps to address any potential concerns in order to optimize subject safety and ensure that studies meet current ethical guidelines and standards.

The use of alternative therapies in the Saskatchewan stroke rehabilitation population.

BACKGROUND: Many patients use alternative therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of stroke rehabilitation patients in Saskatchewan using alternative therapies, whether patients found these therapies effective in alleviating stroke-related symptoms, how often those patients who used alternative therapies discuss this fact with their primary care doctor and the main reason why patients might not do so. METHODS: Telephone questionnaire surveys were conducted with 117 patients who had suffered a stroke and undergone inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation at Saskatoon City Hospital. RESULTS: The study revealed that 26.5% of 117 stroke rehabilitation patients visited alternative practitioners at least once or used some form of unconventional therapy. Only 16.1% of patients found that alternative therapy made them feel much better. Of those who used alternative therapy, 61.3% did not discuss this fact with their primary physician. Many of the respondents (47.3%) who did not inform their physician stated that they did not see the necessity of talking about these treatments and 21.1% did not discuss the issue with their physician because they felt that he or she might disapprove of alternative therapies. CONCLUSION: A relatively small percentage of stroke patients found alternative therapies beneficial. Doctors should be aware that a significant number of patients will try alternative treatment without discussion with their primary care physician or specialist. The current study suggests that after completing routine questioning, doctors should also ask their patients about their use of alternative therapies and, when appropriate, review issues of safety and efficacy.

Medical-ethics teaching in Canadian physical medicine and rehabilitation residency training programs.

BACKGROUND: Medical-ethics education is a required component of all Royal College residency training programs in Canada. There have been no studies to determine how and to what extent this teaching is done in physical medicine and rehabilitation training programs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the state of medical-ethics teaching in Canadian physical medicine and rehabilitation residency training programs. METHODS: A six-question survey was faxed to the program directors of the 10 physiatry residency training programs in Canada. We asked whether medical-ethics teaching is being done, who is doing the teaching, which pedagogic methods is used, how many hours are dedicated to the topic, which topics are taught, and what evaluation method is used. RESULTS: The response rate was 90 per cent. The study confirmed that medical-ethics teaching is done in all Canadian physiatry training programs. However, the person doing the teaching, the number of hours allocated to ethics education, the pedagogic method used, and the topics being taught vary from program to program. CONCLUSION: Although medical-ethics teaching is done in all programs, there is a need for more standardization in the curriculum and in evaluation. The curriculum should focus on ethical issues that are most likely to be encountered in daily physiatric practice. Small-group, case-based teaching should be used for maximum effectiveness. Whenever possible, teaching should be done by a physiatrist.