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.

Resource allocation decisions under pandemic conditions: A cross-sectional survey of Ontario physicians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced physicians to confront difficult choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources, such as ventilators and critical care beds. Developing policies to guide the allocation of such resources has proven challenging. An understanding of physicians' attitudes and beliefs surrounding resource allocation could help inform policymaking. As a replication and extension of a survey of Ottawa physicians conducted in 2020, we surveyed physicians across Ontario, Canada in April 2021. This survey examined physicians' sense of preparedness to allocate critical care resources during the pandemic, attitudes concerning resource allocation policy, and approaches to resource allocation decision-making. Of the 253 responses included for analysis, the majority (67%) of respondents indicated feeling "somewhat" or "a little prepared" to make resource allocation decisions, while 20% indicated feeling "not at all prepared." Most respondents (86%) agreed that a policy to guide resource allocation in the event of scarcity should exist. Physicians overwhelmingly agreed that important factors to consider when making resource allocation decisions included the patient likelihood of survival, frailty index, comorbidities, and cognitive status. Responses from the province-wide survey conducted in 2021 resemble the results of an analogous survey of Ottawa physicians conducted in 2020. Physicians generally felt underprepared to make resource allocation decisions and agreed that official policies should guide such decisions. Identification of factors relevant to resource allocation was remarkably consistent across this sample and that taken in 2020.

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: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths worldwide, leading to symptoms of grief among the bereaved. Neither the burden of severe grief nor its predictors are fully known within the context of the pandemic. AIM: To determine the prevalence and predictors of severe grief in family members who were bereaved early in the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Prospective, matched cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Family members of people who died in an acute hospital in Ottawa, Canada between November 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. We matched relatives of patients who died of COVID (COVID +ve) with those who died of non-COVID illness either during wave 1 of the pandemic (COVID -ve) or immediately prior to its onset (pre-COVID). We abstracted decedents' medical records, contacted family members >6 months post loss, and assessed grief symptoms using the Inventory of Complicated Grief-revised. RESULTS: We abstracted data for 425 decedents (85 COVID +ve, 170 COVID -ve, and 170 pre-COVID), and 110 of 165 contacted family members (67%) consented to participate. Pre-COVID family members were physically present more in the last 48 h of life; the COVID +ve cohort were more present virtually. Overall, 35 family members (28.9%) had severe grief symptoms, and the prevalence was similar among the cohorts (p = 0.91). Grief severity was not correlated with demographic factors, physical presence in the final 48 h of life, intubation, or relationship with the deceased. CONCLUSION: Severe grief is common among family members bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of the cause or circumstances of death, and even if their loss took place before the onset of the pandemic. This suggests that aspects of the pandemic itself contribute to severe grief, and factors that normally mitigate grief may not be as effective.

"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.

Comparative end-of-life communication and support in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare end-of-life in-person family presence, patient-family communication and healthcare team-family communication encounters in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: In a regional multicentre retrospective cohort study, electronic health record data were abstracted for a prepandemic group (pre-COVID) and two intrapandemic (March-August 2020, wave 1) groups, one COVID-19 free (COVID-ve) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve). Pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups were matched 2:1 (age, sex and care service) with the COVID+ve group. SETTING: One quaternary and two tertiary adult, acute care hospitals in Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Decedents (n=425): COVID+ve (n=85), COVID-ve (n=170) and pre-COVID (n=170). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: End-of-life (last 48 hours) in-person family presence and virtual (video) patient-family communication, and end-of-life (last 5 days) virtual team-family communication encounter occurrences were examined using logistic regression with ORs and 95% CIs. End-of-life (last 5 days) rates of in-person and telephone team-family communication encounters were examined using mixed-effects negative binomial models with incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: End-of-life in-person family presence decreased progressively across pre-COVID (90.6%), COVID-ve (79.4%) and COVID+ve (47.1%) groups: adjusted ORs=0.38 (0.2-0.73) and 0.09 (0.04-0.17) for COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups, respectively. COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups had reduced in-person but increased telephone team-family communication encounters: IRRs=0.76 (0.64-0.9) and 0.61 (0.47-0.79) for in-person, and IRRs=2.6 (2.1-3.3) and 4.8 (3.7-6.1) for telephone communications, respectively. Virtual team-family communication encounters occurred in 17/85 (20%) and 10/170 (5.9%) of the COVID+ve and COVID-ve groups, respectively: adjusted OR=3.68 (1.51-8.95). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised COVID-19 pandemic wave 1 decedents, in-person family presence and in-person team-family communication encounters decreased at end of life, particularly in the COVID+ve group; virtual modalities were adopted for communication, and telephone use increased in team-family communication encounters. The implications of these communication changes for the patient, family and healthcare team warrant further study.

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.

Goods, causes and intentions: problems with applying the doctrine of double effect to palliative sedation.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation and analgesia are employed in patients with refractory and intractable symptoms at the end of life to reduce their suffering by lowering their level of consciousness. The doctrine of double effect, a philosophical principle that justifies doing a "good action" with a potentially "bad effect," is frequently employed to provide an ethical justification for this practice. MAIN TEXT: We argue that palliative sedation and analgesia do not fulfill the conditions required to apply the doctrine of double effect, and therefore its use in this domain is inappropriate. Furthermore, we argue that the frequent application of the doctrine of double effect to palliative sedation and analgesia reflects physicians' discomfort with the complex moral, intentional, and causal aspects of end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: We are concerned that this misapplication of the doctrine of double effect can consequently impair physicians' ethical reasoning and relationships with patients at the end of life.

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.

Advance care planning discussions among residents of long term care and designated assisted living: experience from Calgary, Alberta.

OBJECTIVES: Patients, physicians and the healthcare system are faced with the challenge of determining, and respecting, the medical wishes of an aging population. Our study sought to describe who participates in advance care planning (ACP) and decision-making for patients in long-term care and designated assisted living. METHODS: In 2008, Alberta Health Services initiated its 'Advance Care Planning: Goals of Care Designation' (Adult) policy in the Calgary zone. This policy encouraged discussions about goals of care and used a tracking form to capture these conversations. A postpolicy implementation chart review was performed at 3 time points: at baseline, at 6 months and at 18 months post implementation in long term care (LTC) and designated assisted living sites. RESULTS: 166 charts were reviewed and 90% had a documented goals of care order. Less than half of residents (47%) were documented as participating in conversations and they were less likely to participate if they had cognitive impairment and were living in LTC. Documented family participation was more prevalent in LTC (51% vs 11%). Nurses participated in 67% of documented conversations with only 34% of discussions documenting physician involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies the lack of documented resident participation in ACP in LTC. While this finding may be explained by the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in our population, it raises questions about the optimal approach to ACP in LTC. In this setting, ACP appears to be more about relational autonomy than it is about patient autonomy.