Continuous palliative sedation until death: a qualitative study of palliative care clinicians' experiences.

BACKGROUND: The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation. AIM: This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians' experiences with continuous palliative sedation. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group discussions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted six focus groups with a total of 28 palliative care clinicians (i.e., 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula) from diverse care settings across Canada, where assisted dying has recently been legalized. RESULTS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to consolidate the data into six key themes: responding to suffering; grappling with uncertainty; adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; grounding clinical practice in ethics; combining medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity; and offering an alternative to assisted death. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction with the patient's family, uncertainty about the patient's prognosis, the concurrent practice of assisted dying, and the treatment of existential suffering influence the quality of sedation and indicate a lack of clear palliative care guidelines. Nevertheless, clinicians exhibit a reflective and adaptive capacity that can facilitate good practice.

Measuring the Use of End-of-Life Symptom Relief Medications in Long-Term Care Homes-a Qualitative Study.

Background: At the end of life, individuals may experience physical symptoms such as pain, and guidelines recommend medications to manage these symptoms. Yet, little is known about the symptom management long-term care (LTC) residents receive at the end of life. Our research team developed a metric-whether residents receive one or more prescriptions for an end-of-life symptom management medication in their last two weeks-to explore end-of-life care for LTC residents. This qualitative study aimed to inform the refinement of the end-of-life prescribing metric, including the acceptability and applicability to assess the quality of a resident's symptom management at end-of-life. Methods: We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with Ontario health-care providers (physicians and nurses) who work in LTC homes and family caregivers of residents who died in LTC. Interviews were conducted virtually between February 2021 and December 2022, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We identified three major themes relating to perceptions of the metric: 1) appropriateness, 2) health-care provider applicability, and 3) caregiver applicability. Participants noted that the metric may be appropriate to assess end-of-life care, but noted important nuances. Regarding applicability, health-care providers found value in the metric and that it could inform their practice. Conversely, caregivers found limited value in the metric. Conclusion: The proposed metric captures a very specific aspect of end-of-life care-whether end-of-life medications were prescribed or not. Participants deemed that the metric may reflect whether LTC homes have processes to manage a resident's end-of-life symptoms with medication. However, participants thought the metric could not provide a complete picture of end-of-life care and its quality.

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.

Changes in End-of-Life Symptom Management Prescribing among Long-Term Care Residents during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in the prescribing of end-of-life symptom management medications in long-term care (LTC) homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included all individuals who died in LTC homes between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2021. We separated the study into 2 periods: before COVID-19 (January 1, 2017, to March 17, 2020) and during COVID-19 (March 18, 2020, to March 31, 2021). METHODS: For each LTC home, we measured the percentage of residents who died before and during COVID-19 who had a subcutaneous symptom management medication prescription in their last 14 days of life. We grouped LTC homes into quintiles based on their mean prescribing rates before COVID-19, and examined changes in prescribing during COVID-19 and COVID-19 outcomes across quintiles. RESULTS: We captured 75,438 LTC residents who died in Ontario's 626 LTC homes during the entire study period, with 19,522 (25.9%) dying during COVID-19. The mean prescribing rate during COVID-19 ranged from 46.9% to 79.4% between the lowest and highest prescribing quintiles. During COVID-19, the mean prescribing rate in the lowest prescribing quintile increased by 9.6% compared to before COVID-19. Compared to LTC homes in the highest prescribing quintile, homes in the lowest prescribing quintile experienced the highest proportion of COVID-19 outbreaks (73.4% vs 50.0%), the largest mean outbreak intensity (0.27 vs 0.09 cases/bed), the highest mean total days with a COVID-19 outbreak (72.7 vs 24.2 days), and the greatest proportion of decedents who were transferred and died outside of LTC (22.1% vs 8.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: LTC homes in Ontario had wide variations in the prescribing rates of end-of-life symptom management medications before and during COVID-19. Homes in the lower prescribing quintiles had more COVID-19 cases per bed and days spent in an outbreak.

Accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation for psychological distress in advanced cancer: A phase 2a feasibility and preliminary efficacy clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychological and existential suffering affects many people with advanced illness, and current therapeutic options have limited effectiveness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective therapy for refractory depression, but no previous study has used rTMS to treat psychological or existential distress in the palliative setting. AIM: To determine whether a 5-day course of "accelerated" rTMS is feasible and can improve psychological and/or existential distress in a palliative care setting. DESIGN: Open-label, single arm, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy study of intermittent theta-burst stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 600 pulses/session, 8 sessions/day (once per hour) for 5 days. The outcomes were the rates of recruitment, completion of intervention, and follow-up (Feasibility); and the proportion of participants achieving 50% improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 2 weeks post-treatment (Preliminary Efficacy). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted to our academic Palliative Care Unit with advanced illness, life expectancy >1 month and psychological distress. RESULTS: Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related interruptions, a total of nine participants were enrolled between August 2021 and April 2023. Two withdrew before starting rTMS, one stopped due to clinical deterioration unrelated to rTMS, and six completed the rTMS treatment. Five of six participants had a >50% improvement in HDRS, HADS-Anxiety, or both between baseline and the 2 week follow up; the sixth died prior to the 2-week follow-up. In this small sample, mean depression scores decreased from baseline to 2 weeks post-treatment (HDRS 18 vs 7, p = 0.03). Side effects of rTMS included transient mild scalp discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated rTMS improved symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both in this small feasibility and preliminary efficacy study. A larger, sham-controlled study is warranted to determine whether rTMS could be an effective, acceptable, and scalable treatment in the palliative setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04257227.

What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario's protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value - a less acceptable tiebreaker. CONCLUSION: Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

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.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Executive Summary: Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care facilities have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among "unselected" patients due to the absence of data regarding the benefit and the potential harms of false positive alarms, the risk of alarm fatigue, and cost. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system (GPS). CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Palliative End-of-Life Medication Prescribing Rates in Long-Term Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Medications are often needed to manage distressing end-of-life symptoms (eg, pain, agitation). OBJECTIVES: In this study, we describe the variation in prescribing rates of symptom relief medications at the end of life among long-term care (LTC) decedents. We evaluate the extent these medications are prescribed in LTC homes and whether prescribing rates of end-of-life symptom management can be used as an indicator of quality end-of-life care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative health data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: LTC decedents in all 626 publicly funded LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2017, and March 17, 2020. METHODS: For each LTC home, we measured the percent of decedents who received 1+ prescription(s) for a subcutaneous end-of-life symptom management medication ("end-of-life medication") in their last 14 days of life. We then ranked LTC homes into quintiles based on prescribing rates. RESULTS: We identified 55,916 LTC residents who died in LTC. On average, two-thirds of decedents (64.7%) in LTC homes were prescribed at least 1 subcutaneous end-of-life medication in the last 2 weeks of life. Opioids were the most common prescribed medication (overall average prescribing rate of 62.7%). LTC homes in the lowest prescribing quintile had a mean of 37.3% of decedents prescribed an end-of-life medication, and the highest quintile mean was 82.5%. In addition, across these quintiles, the lowest prescribing quintile had a high average (30.3%) of LTC residents transferred out of LTC in the 14 days compared with the highest prescribing quintile (12.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Across Ontario's LTC homes, there are large differences in prescribing rates for subcutaneous end-of-life symptom relief medications. Although future work may elucidate why the variability exists, this study provides evidence that administrative data can provide valuable insight into the systemic delivery of end-of-life care.

Long-term bereavement outcomes in family members of those who died in acute care hospitals before and during the first wave of COVID-19: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe grief is highly distressing and prevalent up to 1 year post-death among people bereaved during the first wave of COVID-19, but no study has assessed changes in grief severity beyond this timeframe. AIM: Understand the trajectory of grief during the pandemic by reassessing grief symptoms in our original cohort 12-18 months post-death. DESIGN: Prospective matched cohort study. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Family members of decedents who died in an acute care hospital between November 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020 in Ottawa, Canada. Family members of patients who died of COVID (COVID +ve) were matched 2:1 with those who died of non-COVID illness (COVID -ve) during pandemic wave 1 or immediately prior to its onset (pre-COVID). Grief was assessed using the Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG). RESULTS: Follow-up assessment was completed by 92% (111/121) of family members in the initial cohort. Mean ICG score on the 12-18-month assessment was 19.9 (SD = 11.8), and severe grief (ICG > 25) was present in 28.8% of participants. One-third (33.3%) had either a persistently high (>25) or worsening ICG score (⩾4-point increase between assessments). Using a modified Poisson regression analysis, persistently high or worsening ICG scores were associated with endotracheal intubation in the deceased, but not cause of death (COVID +ve, COVID -ve, pre-COVID) or physical presence of the family member in the final 48 h of life. CONCLUSIONS: Severe grief is a substantial source of psychological morbidity in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, persisting more than a year post-death. Our findings highlight an acute need for effective and scalable means of addressing severe grief.

Comorbidities, symptoms and end-of-life medication use in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare comorbidities, symptoms and end-of-life (EoL) palliative medication (antisecretories, opioids, antipsychotics and sedatives) use among decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: In a retrospective cohort study, decedent records in three acute care hospitals were abstracted, generating a prepandemic (November 2019-February 2020) group (pre-COVID) and two intrapandemic (March-August 2020, wave 1) groups, one without (COVID-ve) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve). Control group decedents were matched 2:1 on age, sex and care service (medicine/intensive care unit (ICU)) with COVID+ve decedents. SETTING: Three regional acute care teaching hospitals in Ottawa, Canada PARTICIPANTS: Decedents (N=425): COVID+ve (n=85), COVID-ve (n=170) and pre-COVID (n=170). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were abstracted regarding demographics, admission comorbidities and symptoms, and EoL medication use; opioid doses were standardised to parenteral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and the predictors of upper quartile MEDD in the last 24 hours of life were examined in multivariable logistic regression with adjusted ORs (aORs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The prevalence of dementia (41% vs 28% and 26%, p=0.03), breathlessness (63.5% vs 42% and 47%, p<0.01), cough (40% vs 27% and 19%, p<0.01) and fever (54% vs 9% and 13.5%) was higher in COVID+ve versus pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups, respectively. The median (IQR) of MEDD over the last 72 hours of life was 16.7 (9-36.5) vs 13.5 (5.7-21.8) and 10.5 (5.3-23.8) for COVID+ve versus pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups, respectively, (p=0.007). Male sex, COVID+ve grouping, ICU death and high-flow nasal cannula use predicted upper quartile MEDD dose, aORs (95% CIs): 1.84 (1.05 to 3.22), 2.62 (1.29 to 5.3), 5.14 (2.47 to 10.7) and 1.93 (1.05 to 3.52), respectively. COVID+ve group decedents used highest lorazepam and propofol doses. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 decedents, particularly those in ICU, required higher EoL opioid and sedating medication doses than matched prepandemic or intrapandemic controls. These findings should inform and guide clinical practice.

Dons d'organes et de tissus après décès dans le cadre de l'aide médicale à mourir : mise à jour 2023 du document d'orientation pour l'élaboration de politiques.

CONTEXTE: Depuis la parution du document d'orientation de 2019 de la Société canadienne du sang (SCS) pour les dons d'organes et de tissus après décès dans le cadre de l'aide médicale à mourir (AMM), le gouvernement fédéral a apporté des amendements à sa loi sur l'AMM. La présente mise à jour s'adresse aux médecins, aux organismes de don d'organes, aux spécialistes des soins de fin de vie et de l'AMM et aux responsables des orientations politiques; on y explique les répercussions de ces amendements. MÉTHODES: La Société canadienne du sang a réuni un groupe de 63 spécialistes de divers domaines (soins intensifs, dons d'organes et de tissus, administration des services de santé, AMM, bioéthique, droit et recherche) pour faire le point sur ces changements à l'occasion de son Forum d'orientation sur le don d'organes et de tissus après décès dans le cadre de l'aide médicale à mourir. Deux personnes admissibles à l'AMM et 2 proches de personnes ayant fait un don d'organe après l'AMM y ont aussi participé. Dans le cadre de 3 réunions consécutives tenues en ligne entre juin 2021 et avril 2022, les personnes participant au Forum ont abordé divers sujets en grands et petits groupes. Les discussions ont été guidées par une revue documentaire publiée selon la méthodologie JBI. Nous avons utilisé une technique du groupe nominal adaptée pour rédiger les recommandations qui ont fait consensus. La gestion des intérêts concurrents s'est faite selon les principes du Guidelines International Network, un réseau international qui se consacre aux lignes directrices de pratique clinique. RECOMMANDATIONS: Même si bon nombre des recommandations du document d'orientation de 2019 demeurent pertinentes, la présente mise à jour a permis d'en actualiser 2 et d'en formuler 8 nouvelles dans les domaines suivants : aiguillage vers un organisme de don d'organes, consentement, dons dirigés et conditionnels, procédure d'AMM, détermination du décès, équipes soignantes et préparation de rapports. INTERPRÉTATION: Les politiques et les pratiques en matière de don d'organes et de tissus après l'AMM au Canada doivent être conformes à la législation canadienne actuelle. La mise à jour de ce document d'orientation aidera les médecins à s'y retrouver parmi les enjeux médicaux, juridiques et éthiques inhérents à leur travail auprès de personnes qui souhaitent faire un don d'organes après l'AMM.

Physician and administrator experience of preparing to implement Ontario's intensive care unit Triage Emergency Standard of Care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic created a surge in demand for critical care resources, the province of Ontario, Canada, released the Adult Critical Care Clinical Emergency Standard of Care for Major Surge (Emergency Standard of Care [ESoC]), a triage framework to guide the allocation of critical care resources in the expectation that intensive care units would be overwhelmed. Our aim was to understand physicians' and administrators' experiences and perceptions of planning to implement the ESoC, and to identify ways to improve critical care triage processes for future pandemics. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with critical care, emergency and internal medicine physicians, and hospital administrators from various Ontario health regions who were involved in their hospital's or region's ESoC implementation planning. Interviews were conducted virtually between April and October 2021. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 11 physicians and 10 hospital administrators representing 9 health regions. We identified 4 themes regarding participants' preparation to implement the ESoC: infrastructure to enable effective triage implementation; social, medical and political supports to enable effective triage implementation; moral dimensions of triage implementation; and communication of triage results. Participants outlined administrative and implementation-related improvements that could be provided at the provincial level, such as billing codes for ESoC. They also suggested improving ethical supports for the usability and quality of the ESoC (e.g., designating an ethicist in each region), and ways to improve the efficiency and usability of the tools for assessing short-term mortality risk (e.g., create information technology solutions such as a dashboard). INTERPRETATION: The implementation of a jurisdiction-level triage framework poses moral challenges for a health care system, but it also requires dedicated infrastructure, as well as institutional supports. Lessons learned from Ontario's process to prepare for ESoC implementation, as well as participants' suggestions, can be used for planning for current and future pandemics.

End-of-life interventions in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To describe variations in the receipt of potentially inappropriate interventions in the last 100 days of life of patients with cancer according to patient characteristics and cancer site. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of cancer decedents in Ontario, Canada who died between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Potentially inappropriate interventions, including chemotherapy, major surgery, intensive care unit admission, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, dialysis, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical ventilation, feeding tube placement, blood transfusion and bronchoscopy, were captured via hospital discharge records. We used Poisson regression to examine associations between interventions and decedent age, sex, rurality, income and cancer site. RESULTS: Among 151 618 decedents, 81.3% received at least one intervention, and 21.4% received 3+ different interventions. Older patients (age 95-105 years vs 19-44 years, rate ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.38) and women (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.94) had lower intervention rates. Rural patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.10), individuals in the highest area-level income quintile (vs lowest income quintile RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04), and patients with pancreatic cancer (vs colorectal cancer RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.12) had higher intervention rates. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially inappropriate interventions were common in the last 100 days of life of cancer decedents. Variations in interventions may reflect differences in prognostic awareness, healthcare access, and care preferences and quality. Earlier identification of patients' palliative care needs and involvement of palliative care specialists may help reduce the use of these interventions at the end of life.