Search

Antidepressants require several weeks for the onset of action, a lag time that may exceed life expectancy in palliative care. Ketamine has demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects, but has been minimally studied in cancer and palliative care populations. Herein, the objective was to determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of intranasal racemic ketamine for major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with advanced cancer. We conducted a single-arm, open-label phase II trial at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, ON, Canada. Participants with advanced cancer with moderate to severe MDD received three flexible doses of intranasal (IN) ketamine (50–150 mg) over a one-week period. The primary efficacy outcome was an antidepressant response and remission rates as determined by the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the Day 8 primary endpoint. Twenty participants were enrolled in the trial, receiving at least one dose of IN ketamine, with fifteen participants receiving all three doses. The Day 8 antidepressant response (MADRS decreased by >50%) and remission (MADRS < 10 on Day 8) rates were high at 70% and 45%, respectively. Mean MADRS scores decreased significantly from baseline (mean MADRS of 31, standard deviation 7.6) to Day 8 (11 +/− 7.4) with an overall decrease of 20 points (p < 0.001). Antidepressant effects were partially sustained in the second week in the absence of additional ketamine doses, with a Day 14 mean MADRS score of 14 +/− 9.9. Common adverse effects included fatigue, dissociation, nausea, dysgeusia and headaches; almost all adverse effects were mild and transient, resolving within 2 h of each ketamine dose with one dropout related to adverse effects (negative dissociative episode). Given these promising findings, larger, controlled trials are merited.

Family physicians' (FPs) long-term relationships with their oncology patients position them ideally to provide primary palliative care, yet their involvement is variable. We examined perceptions of FP involvement among outpatients receiving palliative care at a cancer center and identified factors associated with this involvement.Patients with advanced cancer attending an oncology palliative care clinic (OPCC) completed a 25-item survey. Eligible patients had seen an FP within 5 years. Binary multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) having seen an FP for palliative care within 6 months, and (2) having a scheduled/planned FP appointment.Of 258 patients, 35.2% (89/253) had seen an FP for palliative care within the preceding 6 months, and 51.2% (130/254) had a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Shorter travel time to FP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.93, p = 0.02), the FP having a 24-h support service (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.02-3.76, p = 0.04), and a positive perception of FP's care (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01) were associated with having seen the FP for palliative care. English as a first language (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.04-8.11, p = 0.04) and greater ease contacting FP after hours (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.08-1.64, p = 0.008) were positively associated, and female sex of patient (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30-0.87, p = 0.01) and travel time to FP (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.93, p = 0.02) negatively associated with having a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Number of OPCC visits was not associated with either outcome.Most patients had not seen an FP for palliative care. Accessibility, availability, and equity are important factors to consider when planning interventions to encourage and facilitate access to FPs for palliative care.

BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles.ResultsMost institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec.ConclusionsRealising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

ObjectivesOutpatient in-person early palliative care improves quality of life for patients with advanced cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic forced a rapid shift to telehealth visits; however, little is known about how telehealth in outpatient palliative care settings should be optimised beyond the pandemic. We aimed to explore, from the perspective of patients attending an outpatient palliative care clinic, the most appropriate model of care for in-person versus telehealth visits.MethodsA qualitative study using the grounded theory method. One-on-one, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 26 patients attending an outpatient palliative care clinic at a tertiary cancer centre recruited from two groups: (1) those with >1 in-person appointment prior to 1 March 2020 and >1 telehealth appointment after this date (n=17); and (2) patients who had exclusively telehealth appointments (n=9). Purposive sampling was used to incorporate diverse perspectives.ResultsOverall, participants endorsed a flexible hybrid approach incorporating both in-person and telehealth visits. Specific categories were: (1) in-person outpatient palliative care supported building interpersonal connections and trust; (2) telehealth palliative care facilitated greater efficiency, comfort and independence and (3) patient-preferred circumstances for in-person visits (preferred for initial consultations, visits where a physical examination may be required and advance care planning discussions), versus telehealth visits (preferred during periods of relative heath stability).ConclusionsThe elements of in-person and telehealth outpatient palliative care clinic visits described by patients as integral to their care may be used to develop models of hybrid outpatient palliative care delivery beyond the pandemic alongside reimbursement and regulatory guidelines.

ObjectivesPatients who do not attend outpatient palliative care clinic appointments (‘no-shows’) may have unmet needs and can impact wait times. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes associated with no-shows.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed new no-show referrals to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Oncology Palliative Care Clinic (OPCC) in Toronto, Canada, between January 2017 and December 2018, compared with a random selection of patients who attended their first appointment, in a 1:2 ratio. We collected patient information, symptoms, performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and outcomes. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify significant factors.ResultsCompared with those who attended (n=214), no-shows (n=103), on multivariable analysis, were at higher odds than those who attended of being younger (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00, p=0.019), living outside Toronto (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 4.62, pConclusionCompared with patients who attended, no-shows lived further from the OPCC, were younger, and had a poorer ECOG. Strategies such as virtual visits should be explored to reduce no-shows and enable attendance at OPCCs.