Search

Background and aims: The expanded use of virtual care may worsen pre-existing disparities in use and delivery of end-of-life care among certain groups of people. We measured the use of virtual care in the last three months of life before and after the introduction of virtual care fee codes that funded care delivery at the start of COVID-19 on March 14, 2020, and identified changes in the characteristics of people using it. Methods: We used linked clinical and administrative datasets to study use of virtual care in the last three months of life among 411,564 adults who died between January 25, 2018, and November 30, 2022. Modified Poisson regression was used to measure the association of the use of virtual care in the last three months of life with the pandemic study period and its association with each person- and physician-level factor. Results: 14,261 people (8%) used virtual care in the last three months of life before the pandemic, and 161,000 people (69%) used it during the pandemic (relative risk [RR] 8.76; 95% CI 8.48–9.05). Several individual patient characteristics were associated with statistically significant increases in the use of virtual care after March 14, 2020 (following the introduction of virtual care fee codes), compared to before such as among older adults, ethnic minorities, multiple chronic comorbid health conditions and higher frailty groups. Conclusions: The introduction of new fee codes broadening technology and funding for end-of-life care at the start of pandemic combined with pandemic-related effects was associated with a substantial increase in the use of virtual care near the end of life among certain groups and a general leveling of pre-existing disparities in its use. Virtual end-of-life care delivery may strengthen person-centredness for individuals with limited ability to attend in-person appointments and by providers who may not have previously engaged in such care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To measure the association between types of serious illness and the use of different physician-delivered care models near the EOL during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, setting and participants: Population-based cohort study using health administrative datasets in Ontario, Canada, for adults aged ≥18 years in their last 90 days of life who died of cancer or terminal noncancer illness and received physician-delivered care models near the end-of-life between March 14, 2020 and January 24, 2022. Exposure: The type of serious illness (cancer or terminal noncancer illness). Main outcome: Physician-delivered care models for adults in the last 90 days of life (exclusively virtual, exclusively home-based in-person, or mixed). Results: The study included 75,930 adults (median age 78 years, 49% female, cancer n = 58,894 [78%], noncancer illness n = 17,036 [22%]). A higher proportion of people with cancer (39.3%) received mixed model of care compared to those with noncancer illnesses (chronic organ failure 24.4%, dementia 37.9%, multimorbidity 28%). Compared to people with cancer, people with chronic organ failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61, 95% CI: 1.54 to 1.68) and those with multimorbidity ([aOR], 1.49, 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.59) had a higher odds of receiving virtual care than a mixed model of care. People with dementia had a higher odds of home-based in-person care than a mixed model of care ([aOR], 1.47, 95% CI 1.27, 1.71) and virtual care ([aOR], 1.40, 95% CI 1.20–1.62) compared to people with cancer. Conclusion: A person's type of serious illness was associated with different care models near the end-of-life. This study demonstrates persistent disease-specific differences in care delivery or possibly the tailoring of models of care in the last 90 days of life based on a person's specific care needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear whether antibiotics impact delirium outcomes in older adults with pyuria or bacteriuria in the absence of systemic signs of infection or genitourinary symptoms. Methods: We registered our systematic review protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42023418091). We searched the Medline and Embase databases from inception until April 2023 for studies investigating the impact of antimicrobial treatment on the duration and severity of delirium in older adults (≥60 years) with pyuria (white blood cells detected on urinalysis or dipstick) or bacteriuria (bacteria growing on urine culture) and without systemic signs of infection (temperature > 37.9C [>100.2F] or 1.5C [2.4F] increase above baseline temperature, and/or hemodynamic instability) or genitourinary symptoms (acute dysuria or new/worsening urinary symptoms). Two reviewers independently screened search results, abstracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Full‐text randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational study designs were included without restriction on study language, duration, or year of publication. Results: We screened 984 citations and included 4 studies comprising 652 older adults (mean age was 84.6 years and 63.5% were women). The four studies were published between 1996 and 2022, and included one RCT, two prospective observational cohort studies, and one retrospective chart review. None of the four studies demonstrated a significant effect of antibiotics on delirium outcomes, with two studies reported a worsening of outcomes among adults who received antibiotics. The three observational studies included had a moderate or serious overall risk of bias, while the one RCT had a high overall risk of bias. Conclusions: Our systematic review found no evidence that treatment with antibiotics is associated with improved delirium outcomes in older adults with pyuria or bacteriuria and without systemic signs of infection or genitourinary symptoms. Overall, the evidence was limited, largely observational, and had substantial risk of bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of addressing patients' personal and often overlooked needs in the context of complex medical care. Topics include the complexity of modern healthcare, the challenge of managing multiple clinical issues, and the value of prioritizing patient-centered care by attending to both clinical and personal concerns.

Author(s): Kieran L. Quinn 1,2,3,4,*, Chaim M. Bell 1,2,3 Emerging evidence suggests that approximately 10% of people who survive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) will have lingering symptoms that negatively affect [...]

Importance: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that palliative care was not associated with improvement in quality of life (QOL) in terminal noncancer illness. Among potential reasons for a null effect, it is unclear if patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring QOL were derived or validated among populations with advanced life-limiting illness (ALLI). Objective: To systematically review the derivation and validation of QOL PROMs from a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of palliative care interventions in people with terminal noncancer illness. Evidence Review: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 8, 2023 for primary validation studies of QOL PROMs in populations with ALLI, defined as adults with a progressive terminal condition and an estimated median survival of less than or equal to one year. The primary outcome was the proportion of PROMs that were derived or validated in ≥1 ALLI population. Findings: Twenty-one unique studies of derivation (n = 13) and validation (n = 11, 3 studies evaluated both) provided data on 9657 participants (mean age 63 years, 50% female) across 15 unique QOL PROMs and subscales. Among studies of validation, 9 were in people with cancer (n = 2289, n = 5 PROMs), 1 in neurodegenerative disease (n = 23, n = 1 PROM), and 1 with mixed diseases (n = 248, n = 1 PROM). Across 15 QOL PROMs and subscales, 47% (n = 7) were derived or validated in an ALLI population. The majority of these seven PROMs were exclusively derived or validated among people with cancer (57%, n = 4). QOL PROMs such as Quality of Life at End of Life, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-level, and 36-item Short Form Survey demonstrated validity in more than one terminal noncancer illness. Conclusions: Most QOL PROMs that measured the effect of palliative care on QOL in RCTs were neither derived nor validated in an ALLI population. These findings raise questions about the inferences that palliative care does not improve QOL among people with terminal noncancer illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]