Managing opioids and mitigating opioid risks in patients with cancer: An environmental scan of the attitudes, confidence, and practices of ambulatory, community and hospital pharmacists practicing in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Canada is in the midst of an overdose crisis. The use of prescription opioids in Canada has increased steadily over the past two decades, with stark increases in opioid-induced respiratory depression and related deaths. Opioids are the mainstay of treatment for cancer-related pain. Patients with cancer are not immune to the risks associated with opioid use but are underrepresented in available literature outlining risk mitigation strategies. Pharmacists are ideally placed to employ opioid risk mitigation practices to support safe and effective opioid use for patients with cancer-related pain. However, the current attitudes, confidence, and safety practices of pharmacists around how to best support these patients are not known. METHODS: This study was a descriptive environmental scan of pharmacists who provide direct patient care in Canada. An electronic questionnaire was built using the web based Opinio software. It was distributed via email by several provincial and national pharmacy organizations and online platforms. The questionnaire consisted of Likert-scale and open-ended questions and was open to participants for a 6-week period from February 12th to March 23rd, 2020. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one responses from pharmacists in nine provinces were included in the analysis. Respondents endorsed limited and varied practices when caring for patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. Further, they demonstrated wide ranging confidence and attitudes regarding opioid risk mitigation practices and beliefs. Less than 50% of pharmacists were aware of resources available for their patients with non-medical opioid use, and/or patients at high risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression. Education, resources, and communication were the most commonly reported perceived facilitators and barriers to resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists in Canada report employing opioid risk mitigation practices with low and varied frequency when caring for patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. They endorsed varied confidence and limited awareness of available provider and patient resources. These findings may help inform the development of new education models and evidence-based guidelines. New education models and evidence-based guidelines will support pharmacists in their pharmaceutical care of this vulnerable patient population, ultimately aiming to improve patient outcomes.

Palliative Education and Care for the Homeless (PEACH): A Model of Outreach Palliative Care for Structurally Vulnerable Populations.

The Palliative Education and Care for the Homeless (PEACH) program comprises a community palliative care team serving some of the most complex clients in the healthcare system. Formal partnerships bring together physician, nursing, psychosocial and homecare, health and housing navigation supports. PEACH has served over 1,000 clients, leading field-defining research, medical education and public advocacy. The PEACH program demonstrates that innovation through deep interorganizational and intersectoral integration can drive value-based impact for the most complex clients, providing instructive lessons for public health system reform well beyond the margins faced by people who are unhoused. This paper describes how PEACH's unique model, critical community partnerships and research have been necessary for it to become a leader in community-based palliative care for structurally vulnerable people.

Assessing the impact of a health navigator on improving access to care and addressing the social needs of palliative care patients experiencing homelessness: A service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Health navigators are healthcare professionals who specialize in care coordination, case management, navigating transitions, and reducing barriers to care. There is limited literature on the impact of health navigators on community-based palliative care for people experiencing homelessness. AIM: We devised key performance indicators in nine categories with the aim to quantify the impact of a health navigator on the delivery of palliative care to patients experiencing homelessness. DESIGN: Data were collected prospectively for all patient encounters involving a health navigator from July 2020 to 2021 and reviewed to determine the distribution of the health navigator's role and the ways in which patient care was impacted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted in Toronto, Ontario with the Palliative Education and Care for the Homeless (PEACH) Program. At any one time, the PEACH health navigator served a total of 50 patients. RESULTS: We identified five key areas of the health navigator role including (1) facilitating access (2) coordinating care (3) addressing social determinants of health (4) advocating for patients, and (5) counselling patients and loved ones. The health navigator role was split evenly between activities pertaining to palliative care for structurally vulnerable populations and community-based palliative care for the general population. To achieve high impact outcomes, a considerable investment of time and energy was required of the health navigator, speaking to the importance of adequate and sustainable funding. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the potential for health navigators to add value to community-based palliative care teams, especially those caring for structurally vulnerable populations.

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.

Palliative care for people who use substances during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Communicable disease epidemics and pandemics magnify the health inequities experienced by marginalised populations. People who use substances suffer from high rates of morbidity and mortality and should be a priority to receive palliative care, yet they encounter many barriers to palliative care access. Given the pre-existing inequities to palliative care access for people with life-limiting illnesses who use substances, it is important to understand the impact of communicable disease epidemics and pandemics such as COVID-19 on this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review and report according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in seven bibliographical databases from the inception of each database to August 2020. We also performed a grey literature search to identify the publications not indexed in the bibliographical databases. All the searches will be rerun in April 2021 to retrieve recently published information because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing at the time of this writing. We will extract the quantitative data using a standardised data extraction form and summarise it using descriptive statistics. Additionally, we will conduct thematic qualitative analyses and present our findings as narrative summaries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for a scoping review. We will disseminate our findings to healthcare providers and policymakers through professional networks, digital communications through social media platforms, conference presentations and publication in a scientific journal.

Assessment tools for problematic opioid use in palliative care: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Screening for problematic opioid use is increasingly recommended in patients receiving palliative care. AIM: To identify tools used to assess for the presence or risk of problematic opioid use in palliative care. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases (inception to January 31, 2020), reference lists, and grey literature were searched to find primary studies reporting on adults receiving palliative care and prescription opioids to manage symptoms from advanced cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, or end-stage organ diseases; and included tools to assess for problematic opioid use. There were no restrictions based on study design, location, or language. RESULTS: We identified 42 observational studies (total 14,431 participants) published between 2009 and 2020 that used questionnaires (n = 32) and urine drug tests (n = 21) to assess for problematic opioid use in palliative care, primarily in US (n = 38) and outpatient palliative care settings (n = 36). The questionnaires were Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE, n = 8), CAGE-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID, n = 6), Opioid Risk Tool (n = 9), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP; n = 3), SOAPP-Revised (n = 2), and SOAPP-Short Form (n = 5). Only two studies' primary objectives were to evaluate a questionnaire's psychometric properties in patients receiving palliative care. There was wide variation in how urine drug tests were incorporated into palliative care; frequency of abnormal urine drug test results ranged from 8.6% to 70%. CONCLUSION: Given the dearth of studies using tools developed or validated specifically for patients receiving palliative care, further research is needed to inform clinical practice and policy regarding problematic opioid use in palliative care.

Managing Opioids and Mitigating Risk: A Survey of Attitudes, Confidence and Practices of Oncology Health Care Professionals.

In response to Canada's opioid crisis, national strategies and guidelines have been developed but primarily focus on opioid use for chronic noncancer pain. Despite the well-established utility of opioids in cancer care, and the growing emphasis on early palliative care, little attention has been paid to opioid risk in this population, where evidence increasingly shows a higher risk of opioid-related harms than was previously thought. The primary objective of this study was to assess oncology clinicians' attitudes, confidence, and practices in managing opioids in outpatients with cancer. This was explored using pilot-tested, profession-specific surveys for physicians/nurse practitioners, nurses and pharmacists. Descriptive analyses were conducted in aggregate and separately based on discipline. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to explore relationships between confidence and practices within and across disciplines. The survey was distributed to approximately 400 clinicians in January 2019. Sixty-five responses (27 physicians/nurse practitioners, 31 nurses, 7 pharmacists) were received. Participants endorsed low confidence, differing attitudes, and limited and varied practice in managing and mitigating opioid risks in the cancer population. This study provides valuable insights into knowledge gaps and clinical practices of oncology healthcare professionals in managing opioids and mitigating associated risks for patients with cancer.

The Good Wishes Project: An End-of-Life Intervention for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness.

Background: Individuals experiencing homelessness face marginalization, dehumanization, and barriers to accessing quality palliative care. Inspired by the 3 Wishes Project, the Good Wishes Project (GWP) facilitates granting wishes to individuals experiencing homelessness and receiving palliative care with a goal of enhancing comfort and personalizing the end-of-life experience. Objective: The main objective of this study was to elicit provider perspectives on the utility of the GWP in the delivery of end-of-life care to a population of homeless and vulnerably housed individuals. Design: For this qualitative study, GWP client information and wish data were collected anonymously and analyzed quantitatively and descriptively. Semistructured interviews were conducted with health and social service professionals who cared for GWP clients. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed through qualitative content analysis. Results: At the time of evaluation, there were a total of 27 clients in the GWP. At 14 months after the project's launch, 40 wishes had been made, 24 of which had been granted. Wishes were classified into five categories: basic necessities, end-of-life preparations, personal connections, paying-it-forward, and leisure. From the provider perspective (n = 7), the project was found to have utility in three main domains: establishing and enhancing connection, satisfying basic needs, and promoting person-centered care. Conclusions: The GWP is a promising psychosocial intervention in providing quality palliative care to individuals experiencing homelessness, whose lives have largely been burdened with hardship and marginalization.

Prostate Cancer Patients' Preferences for Intermittent vs. Continuous Androgen Deprivation-A Pilot Institutional Study.

INTRODUCTION: With locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer patients, patient preference between intermittent (IAD) and continuous (CAD) androgen deprivation therapy has not been investigated. The goal of the study was to determine patients' preference for IAD vs. CAD therapy. The secondary aim was to elucidate demographic or treatment variables that may affect a patient's preference for one type of hormonal treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a tradeoff model that demonstrates the difference in outcome between IAD and CAD, a survey questionnaire was developed and administered to prostate cancer patients at the Odette Cancer Centre at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Only patients who had (1) locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) been previously treated for prostate cancer with relapsing prostate-specific antigen, or (3) slow metastatic disease were asked to participate. Data related to patients' demographic information and their decisional preference factors were collected. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 36 of 53 (68%) patients completed the survey. Most patients favoured IAD (n = 32) over CAD (n = 4). Patients currently on radical treatment (adjuvant hormone therapy and radiation therapy) preferred CAD compared with patients who were not on radical treatment (P = .044). Patients with high (>20 ng/L) pretreatment prostate-specific antigen showed preference for CAD; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). Patients from both groups viewed quality of life as the strongest influence on their treatment preference, but had diverging opinions on side effects and general well being. The results of this pilot study could serve as a guide for future studies; a larger study combined with qualitative methodology may better address patients' needs and minimize any regret over their hormonal treatment.