Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the attitudes and beliefs of PCU physicians leaders in the United States versus Canada regarding the subcutaneous method in the administration of medications and hydration in order to gain a better understanding as to why variations in practice exist. Methods: This survey trial took place from November 2022 to May 2023. The MD Anderson Cancer Center institutional review board in Houston, Texas, approved this study. The participants were the physician leaders of the acute palliative care units (PCUs) in the United States and Canada. The survey comprised questions formulated by the study investigators regarding the perceived comfort, efficiency, and preference of using the subcutaneous versus the intravenous method. The consent form and survey links were emailed to the participants. Results: Sixteen PCUs were identified in the United States and 15 PCUs in Canada. Nine US and 8 Canadian physicians completed the survey. Physicians in Canada were more likely to use the subcutaneous route for administering opioids, antiemetics, neuroleptics, and hydration. They preferred subcutaneous over intravenous or intramuscular routes (p = 0.017). Canadian physicians felt their nursing staff was more comfortable with subcutaneous administration (p = 0.022) and that it was easier to administer (p = 0.02). US physicians felt the intravenous route was more efficient (p = 0.013). Significance of results: The study results suggest that exposure to the subcutaneous route influences a physician's perception. Further research is needed to explore ways to incorporate its use to a greater degree in the US healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In addition to shifting and expanding clinical responsibilities, rapidly evolving information and guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic has made it difficult for health care workers (HCW) to synthesise and translate COVID-19 information into practice. This study evaluated whether a COVID-19-specific telemedicine education program (ECHO COVID) would impact health care workers' self-efficacy and satisfaction in the management of patients with COVID-19. Methods: A prospective mixed methods parallel-design study was conducted among ECHO COVID participants using pre-post questionnaires and a focus group discussion. Questionnaire results were examined for changes in health care workers' self-efficacy and satisfaction. Focus group discussion data were analysed to explore health care workers' experience in ECHO COVID and the context of their practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: 239 health care workers registered in ECHO COVID and 114 (47.7%) completed questionnaires and attended at least one ECHO COVID session. Median self-efficacy scores increased from 5 (IQR 4–6) to 6 (IQR 6–6) (p < 0.0001), independent of profession, years in practice, age group, or practice environment. Participants were highly satisfied with ECHO COVID sessions with a median score of 4 (IQR 4–5). Focus group discussion data indicated that health care workers gained knowledge through ECHO COVID and revealed facilitators for ECHO COVID program success, including the transition to virtual care, the practicability of knowledge provided, and a 'perspective from the trenches.' Discussion: This study demonstrated that a telemedicine education program aimed to support health care workers in managing patients with COVID-19 had a positive impact on health care workers' self-efficacy and satisfaction. This impact was specifically mediated by the ECHO COVID program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]