Practicing Surgeons' Perception of Barriers to Palliative Care Delivery in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of palliative care remains low among surgical patients. We aim to characterize general surgeons' perceptions of barriers to access palliative care in British Columbia (BC). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a total of 11 surgeons in BC. Interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis via interpretive description. Dominant themes were identified and agreed upon between the authors. RESULTS: Several barriers were identified, which include system and institution, communication and surgical workflow barriers. At the system and institutional level, there were difficulties accessing patient information and continuity of care. Themes in the communication included patient misconceptions about palliative care and communication challenges with consulting services. Surgical workflow barriers influenced the overall perceived role of surgeons when caring for patients with palliative care needs. CONCLUSION: Understanding surgeons' perspectives on barriers to palliative care is an important step in changing management. This can aid in the development of strategies that ease access to palliative care.

Exploring the value of structured narrative feedback within the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex): a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) has emerged as a framework for conversations with patients with a serious illness diagnosis. This study reports on narratives generated from open-ended questions of a novel assessment tool, the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex), to assess resident-led conversations with patients in oncology outpatient clinics. DESIGN: Qualitative study using template analysis. SETTING: Three academic cancer centres in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 7 resident physicians (trainees), 7 patients from outpatient cancer clinics, 10 preceptors (raters) consisting of medical oncologists, palliative care physicians and radiation oncologists. INTERVENTIONS: Each trainee conducted an SIC with a patient, which was videotaped. The raters watched the videos and evaluated each trainee using the novel SIC-Ex and the reference Calgary-Cambridge Guide (CCG) initially and again 3 months later. Two independent coders used template analysis to code the raters' narrative comments and identify themes/subthemes. OUTCOME MEASURES: How narrative comments aligned with elements of the CCG and SICG. RESULTS: Template analysis yielded four themes: adhering to SICG, engaging patients and family members, conversation management and being mindful of demeanour. Narrative comments identified numerous verbal and non-verbal elements essential to SICG. Some comments addressing general skills in engaging patients/families and managing the conversation (eg, setting agenda, introduction, planning, exploring, non-verbal communication) related to both the CCG and SICG, whereas other comments such as identifying substitute decision maker(s), affirming commitment and introducing Advance Care Planning were specific to the SICG. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative comments generated by SIC-Ex provided detailed and nuanced insights into trainees' competence in SIC, beyond the numerical ratings of SIC-Ex and the general communication skills outlined in the CCG, and may contribute to a more fulsome assessment of SIC skills.

A clustered randomized controlled trial of symptom screening and automatic referral for supportive care for patients with GI cancer care needs.

Purpose: To explore the impact of implementation of a symptom screening and supportive/palliative care referral pathway in patients newly referred to a Canadian gastrointestinal medical oncology clinic. Methods: Eighty-eight subjects were recruited in each study arm. Intervention subjects were assessed by a member of the supportive/palliative care team if they had a severity score of >3/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Controls received normal care, including discretionary referral. Symptom severity was assessed over the subsequent five months. Data on survival, care setting of death (home, hospice or hospital) and long-term resource use were also collected. Results: Screening led to 141 specialist supportive/palliative care visits in the intervention arm versus only nine in the control arm. There were, however, no subsequent significant differences in symptom severity or the long-term outcomes measured. Many patients identified by the >3/10 severity threshold did not need/want specialist supportive/palliative care referral, and those with severe distress were either identified by the oncology team already or were too unwell or overwhelmed to participate in the study. The specialist service was not overwhelmed. Important considerations on timing and mode of administration of screening tools were revealed. Conclusion: Routine symptom screening can be burdensome for oncology patients and needs to be as simple as possible. Triaging positive screens is an important role for oncology nurses. Investment in training oncology teams to manage uncomplicated distress in the oncology clinic allows for optimal use of scarce supportive/palliative care specialist resources for patients with complex needs.

Understanding cancer survivors' reasons to medicate with cannabis: A qualitative study based on the theory of planned behavior.

BACKGROUND: Prior to nonmedical cannabis legalization in Canada, individuals were only able to access cannabis legally through licensed producers with medical authorization. Now with an additional legal access system designed for nonmedical purposes, it is unclear what factors influence cancer survivors' decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis as a complementary therapy to alleviate their cancer symptoms. METHODS: We recruited cancer survivors via social media. Interested individuals were purposively sampled to ensure maximization in terms of age, sex, and province of residence. Constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior were explored during the telephone interviews as participants described what influenced their decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis to manage their symptoms. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 33 cancer survivors. All individuals believed that cannabis would manage their cancer symptoms. Those that chose to medicate with cannabis provided a variety of reasons, including that cannabis was a more natural alternative; that it reduced their overall number of prescription drugs; and that safer products had become available with the legalization of nonmedical cannabis. Some individuals also indicated that support from physicians and validation from family and friends were important in their decision to medicate with cannabis. Individuals who opted not to medicate with cannabis raised concerns about the lack of scientific evidence and/or possible dependency issues. Some also felt their physician's disapproval was a barrier to considering cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that recreational legalization made using cannabis appear safer and easier to access for some cancer survivors. However, physicians' censure of cannabis use for symptom management was a barrier for survivors considering its use.

The impact of legalization of access to recreational Cannabis on Canadian medical users with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Canada legalized cannabis use for medical purposes in 1999. Legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes in October 2018 offered the opportunity to assess the impact of recreational legalization on cancer patients' patterns of use to identify learning points that could be helpful to other countries considering similar legislation. METHOD: Two identical anonymous cross-sectional surveys were administered to cancer patients in British Columbia 2 months before and 3 months following legalization, with the same eligibility criteria. The prevalence of medical cannabis use, the distribution of symptoms leading to use, the most common types of cannabis products and sources, reasons for stopping using cannabis, and barriers to access were assessed. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 27%. Both cohorts were similar regarding age (median = 66 yrs), gender (53% female), and education (approximately 85% of participants had an education level of high school graduation and higher). Respondents had multiple motives for taking cannabis, including to manage multiple symptoms, to treat cancer, and for recreational reasons. The majority of patients in both surveys did not use the legal medical access system. Comparison of the two cohorts showed that after legalization the prevalence of current cannabis use increased by 26% (23·1% to 29·1%, p-value 0·01), including an increased disclosure of recreational motive for use, from 32 to 40%. However, in the post-legalization cohort more Current Users reported problems getting cannabis (18%) than the pre-legalization cohort (8%), (p-value < 0·01). The most common barrier cited was lack of available preferred products, including edibles, as these were only available from illegal dispensaries. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes may have an impact on those who use medical cannabis. Impacts include an increase in prevalence of use; problems accessing preferred products legally; higher cost, and difficulties using a legal access system. The desired goal of regulation in reducing harms from use of illegal cannabis products are unlikely to be achieved if the legal process is less attractive to patients than use of illegal sources.

Subcutaneous Lidocaine for Cancer-Related Pain.

Background: Intravenous lidocaine infusions have been shown to be effective for cancer related pain, but access is restricted to acute care settings. If able to be shown to be safe and effective, the subcutaneous route could expand access to residential hospices or patients' homes. Objectives: This randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, 2 × 2 crossover trial evaluated the effectiveness, safety, toxicity, and impact on quality of life of a limited duration subcutaneous lidocaine infusion (SCLI) for chronic cancer pain. Methods: Patients with the life expectancy of three months or more, who were experiencing cancer-related pain with a worst severity of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale despite a trial of at least one opioid and appropriate adjuvant analgesic, received two subcutaneous infusions at least a week apart; lidocaine 10 mg/kg over 5.5 hours and saline placebo. The primary outcome was either a reduction in worst pain intensity of two points out of 10 or a reduction in 24 hours opioid dose of at least 30% without worsening of pain scores, in seven days. Results: The SCLI was only effective for two subjects. One of these subjects experienced a drop in worst pain score and the other experienced a reduction in opioid dose. Conclusions: A weight-based subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine does not achieve sufficiently predictable blood levels for determining lidocaine responsiveness. This study does not allow any conclusion to be drawn on whether or not lidocaine would have been more effective had it been titrated to higher blood levels.

Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise: A Novel Assessment Tool for Residents Leading Serious Illness Conversations.

Background/Objectives: The serious illness conversation (SIC) is an evidence-based framework for conversations with patients about a serious illness diagnosis. The objective of our study was to develop and validate a novel tool, the SIC-evaluation exercise (SIC-Ex), to facilitate assessment of resident-led conversations with oncology patients. Design: We developed the SIC-Ex based on SIC and on the Royal College of Canada Medical Oncology milestones. Seven resident trainees and 10 evaluators were recruited. Each trainee conducted an SIC with a patient, which was videotaped. The evaluators watched the videos and evaluated each trainee by using the novel SIC-Ex and the reference Calgary-Cambridge guide (CCG) at months zero and three. We used Kane's validity framework to assess validity. Results: Intra-class correlation using average SIC-Ex scores showed a moderate level of inter-evaluator agreement (range 0.523-0.822). Most evaluators rated a particular resident similar to the group average, except for one to two evaluator outliers in each domain. Test-retest reliability showed a moderate level of consistency among SIC-Ex scores at months zero and three. Global rating at zero and three months showed fair to good/very good inter-evaluator correlation. Pearson correlation coefficients comparing total SIC-Ex and CCG scores were high for most evaluators. Self-scores by trainees did not correlate well with scores by evaluators. Conclusions: SIC-Ex is the first assessment tool that provides evidence for incorporating the SIG guide framework for evaluation of resident competence. SIC-Ex is conceptually related to, but more specific than, CCG in evaluating serious illness conversation skills.

PEG vs. sennosides for opioid-induced constipation in cancer care.

PURPOSE: This randomized double-blind, double-dummy, 2-treatment, 2-period crossover study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sennosides in ambulatory cancer patients with opioid-induced constipation. METHODS: Outpatients ≥ 18 years old with cancer, at risk of or already experiencing opioid-induced constipation, were randomly assigned to begin a standard bowel protocol of escalating doses of sennosides or PEG, plus a dummy preparation. After 3 weeks, the patients switched to the alternate active product and dummy preparation. Constipation was assessed using the revised Victoria Bowel Performance Scale (rBPS) at the end of each of the 2 consecutive 21-day study periods for the number of days with a satisfactory bowel movement, the time in days to goal rBPS (G), and the treatment preference of each patient. RESULTS: Seventy patients were recruited, with 42 completing their first treatment period and 28 completing both treatment periods. For the typical patient, the expected number of days with a satisfactory bowel movement per days of treatment was found to be 1.21 times higher on PEG than on sennosides in a particular period (95% credible interval 0.96 to 1.55). Patients taking PEG were 1.47 times more likely to reach a rBPS of G before patients taking sennosides in the first period (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 2.94). There was no evidence of a difference in patient preference between laxatives. CONCLUSION: Our study found weak evidence that PEG is superior to sennosides with respect to overall effectiveness in cancer patients with opioid-induced constipation.

Palliative care and active disease management are synergistic in modern surgical oncology.

Palliative care has long been described in medical literature but only recently is being discussed in the surgical domain. Mounting evidence suggests that early integration of palliative care improves patient outcomes and this is especially true of oncology patients. Thus, the pendulum is swinging toward recognizing that palliative care and active disease management are not mutually exclusive but rather synergistic in modern surgical oncology. Here we use a patient vignette to demonstrate the new challenges and possibilities in modern surgical oncology, we then discuss the historic perspective of palliative care and describe how the paradigm is shifting. Finally, we introduce a model that may be beneficial in conceptualizing this new way of thinking about and integrating palliative care into surgical oncology.

Breakthrough cancer pain: a comparison of surveys with European and Canadian patients.

INTRODUCTION: Breakthrough cancer pain is defined as a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs spontaneously or in response to a trigger, despite stable and controlled background pain. Breakthrough pain often causes significant functional impairments for patients and can decrease quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine differences between breakthrough cancer pain incidence and management in Canada and Europe. METHODS: Data collected from previous studies of breakthrough cancer pain in Canada and Europe was compared. A standard survey with identical inclusion/exclusion criteria was utilized for both patient populations. RESULTS: Both groups of patients had a similar number and duration of breakthrough pain episodes, and similar pain intensity and pain interference with their daily activities. European patients reported better analgesic efficacy and satisfaction with management, and a greater percentage of European patients were prescribed a transmucosal fentanyl formulation (19.1 vs 2.9 %). More European patients (55 %) than Canadian patients (32.5 %) took their rescue medication every time they had a breakthrough pain episode. CONCLUSIONS: Breakthrough cancer pain in both Canadian and European patients greatly impacts their daily living, and both groups of patients had similar experiences with breakthrough cancer pain. Currently, this pain is not adequately managed for many patients. The role for new analgesic treatments in management of breakthrough cancer pain needs further study.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of manuka honey for radiation-induced oral mucositis.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments have the potential to reduce the severity of radiation-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer patients. Some small studies have suggested that organic honey may be a useful preventive treatment. METHODS: This investigator-initiated double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial investigated whether honey reduced the severity of radiation-induced oral mucositis (ROM). One hundred six head and neck cancer patients from the Vancouver and Sudbury Cancer Centers in Canada were randomized to swish, hold, and swallow either 5 ml of irradiated organic manuka honey or a placebo gel, four times a day throughout radiation treatment, plus seven more days. Severity of oral mucositis according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), World Health Organization (WHO), and Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale scales, weight, and subjects' symptom severity and quality of life were assessed weekly. Sialometry was performed at baseline and at the last study visit. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were recruited. Twenty-four did not attend any mucositis assessments. One was removed from the study because of off-study consumption of store-bought manuka honey. The remaining 81 patients had at least one mucositis assessment and were included in the analysis. Sixty-two percent of subjects received concurrent chemotherapy; 81 % were male. The groups were well-matched, and blinding was excellent. Dropouts were mostly due to nausea and were similar in both arms, with 78 % being able to tolerate the study products for more than 1 week. The dropout rate was 57 % in those who received honey and 52 % in those who received placebo gel. The dropout rate in those who had concurrent chemotherapy was 59 % and in those who only received radiation was 47 %. There was no statistically significant difference between the honey and placebo arms in any of the outcome indicators. Those who completed the study in both treatment arms had low rates of RTOG greater than or equal to grade 3 mucositis; 35 % in the honey group and 43 % in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Despite promising earlier reports, manuka honey was not tolerated well by our patients and, even when used as directed, did not have a significant impact on the severity of ROM.

A survey of Canadian cancer patients' perspectives on the characteristics and treatment of breakthrough pain.

OBJECTIVE: Breakthrough pain is defined as a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs spontaneously or in response to a trigger despite stable and controlled background pain. The purpose of this study was to explore Canadian patients' awareness of and experience with breakthrough pain in cancer (BTPc). METHODS: Four Canadian cancer centers participated in a non-interventional survey recruiting cancer patients who experienced breakthrough pain. These patients were asked about their pain, its impact on functioning, current management and interest in new treatments of BTPc. RESULTS: Ninety-four Canadian cancer patients participated in this study, with 96% stating that cancer pain impacted their daily living with over half unable to go to work or shopping. Fifty percent of patients said that an episode of BTPc lasted greater than 60 minutes, with the pain score being on average 7.8/10, impacting normal work (7.2/10) and general activity (7.1/10). Only 35% of patients were very satisfied with the speed of relief of their medications. Those who did not take their breakthrough pain medication for every episode stated that was because the pain was not always severe (37%), or they were afraid of becoming tolerant (23%) or addicted (12%). Patients stated that the most important features of a new treatment for BTPc were the ability to relieve pain completely (47%), and quickly (43%). Patients expressed willingness to try transmucosal products (80%) or nasal products (59%). CONCLUSION: Breakthrough cancer pain in Canadian cancer patients greatly impacts their daily lives. There is room for improvement in the management of BTPc, and the majority of patients would be willing to try new treatments.

Continuing methadone for pain in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Methadone is one of the most important medications used for the treatment of refractory pain in the palliative care setting, and is usually initially prescribed by one of a limited number of physicians who have acquired authorization for its use. A lack of authorized physicians able to take over prescribing when the patient is stable is a barrier to accessing methadone for analgesia. OBJECTIVE: To determine the barriers to family physicians becoming authorized to prescribe methadone for pain in palliative care. METHODS: A survey exploring the perceived barriers to continuing methadone for pain in palliative care following initial prescription by a specialist was mailed to a randomly selected group of 870 family physicians in British Columbia. RESULTS: The response rate was 30.9%. Of the 204 responding physicians, 76.1% described themselves as positioned to provide ongoing palliative care to their patients. Within this group, 38 (18.6%) were already authorized to prescribe methadone for pain. The remaining 166 (81.4%) had significant knowledge deficits regarding methadone use in palliative care, but were largely aware of their deficits, and more than one-half were willing to learn more and to obtain an authorization if requested. CONCLUSIONS: Responding family physicians had mostly received little education regarding methadone for pain, but were aware of their need for education and were willing to learn. Physicians who had already become authorized were generally satisfied with the process of authorization, and believed the process of education through authorization was appropriate and not onerous.