Physicians described relationship, financial, and workload challenges to providing MAiD. We provide several recommendations to address these challenges and help ensure the sustainability of MAiD in countries that provide this service.

No abstract

BackgroundThe management of patients with complex care needs requires the expertise of health care providers from multiple settings and specialties. As such, there is a need for cross-setting, cross-disciplinary solutions that address deficits in communication and continuity of care. We have developed a Web-based tool for clinical collaboration, called Loop, which assembles the patient and care team in a virtual space for the purpose of facilitating communication around care management.ObjectiveThe objectives of this pilot study were to evaluate the feasibility of integrating a tool like Loop into current care practices and to capture preliminary measures of the effect of Loop on continuity of care, quality of care, symptom distress, and health care utilization.MethodsWe conducted an open-label pilot cluster randomized controlled trial allocating patients with advanced cancer (defined as stage III or IV disease) with ≥3 months prognosis, their participating health care team and caregivers to receive either the Loop intervention or usual care. Outcome data were collected from patients on a monthly basis for 3 months. Trial feasibility was measured with rate of uptake, as well as recruitment and system usage. The Picker Continuity of Care subscale, Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and Ambulatory and Home Care Record were patient self-reported measures of continuity of care, quality of care, symptom distress, and health services utilization, respectively. We conducted a content analysis of messages posted on Loop to understand how the system was used.ResultsNineteen physicians (oncologists or palliative care physicians) were randomized to the intervention or control arms. One hundred twenty-seven of their patients with advanced cancer were approached and 48 patients enrolled. Of 24 patients in the intervention arm, 20 (83.3%) registered onto Loop. In the intervention and control arms, 12 and 11 patients completed three months of follow-up, respectively. A mean of 1.2 (range: 0 to 4) additional healthcare providers with an average total of 3 healthcare providers participated per team. An unadjusted between-arm increase of +11.4 was observed on the Picker scale in favor of the intervention arm. Other measures showed negligible changes. Loop was primarily used for medical care management, symptom reporting, and appointment coordination.ConclusionsThe results of this study show that implementation of Loop was feasible. It provides useful information for planning future studies further examining effectiveness and team collaboration. Numerically higher scores were observed for the Loop arm relative to the control arm with respect to continuity of care. Future work is required to understand the incentives and barriers to participation so that the implementation of tools like Loop can be optimized.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02372994; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02372994 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6r00L4Skb).

Background Communication within the circle of care is central to coordinated, safe, and effective care; yet patients, caregivers, and health care providers often experience poor communication and fragmented care. Through a sequential program of research, the Loop Research Collaborative developed a web-based, asynchronous clinical communication system for team-based care. Loop assembles the circle of care centered on a patient, in private networking spaces called Patient Loops. The patient, their caregiver, or both are part of the Patient Loop. The communication is threaded, it can be filtered and sorted in multiple ways, it is securely stored, and can be exported for upload to a medical record. Objective The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate Loop. The study reporting adheres to the Standards for Reporting Implementation Research. Methods The study was a hybrid type II mixed methods design to simultaneously evaluate Loop’s clinical and implementation effectiveness, and implementation barriers and facilitators in 6 health care sites. Data included monthly user check-in interviews and bimonthly surveys to capture patient or caregiver experience of continuity of care, in-depth interviews to explore barriers and facilitators based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and Loop usage extracted directly from the Loop system. Results We recruited 25 initiating health care providers across 6 sites who then identified patients or caregivers for recruitment. Of 147 patient or caregiver participants who were assessed and met screening criteria, 57 consented and 52 were enrolled on Loop, creating 52 Patient Loops. Across all Patient Loops, 96 additional health care providers consented to join the Loop teams. Loop usage was followed for up to 8 months. The median number of messages exchanged per team was 1 (range 0-28). The monthly check-in and CFIR interviews showed that although participants acknowledged that Loop could potentially fill a gap, existing modes of communication, workflows, incentives, and the lack of integration with the hospital electronic medical records and patient portals were barriers to its adoption. While participants acknowledged Loop’s potential value for engaging the patient and caregiver, and for improving communication within the patient’s circle of care, Loop’s relative advantage was not realized during the study and there was insufficient tension for change. Missing data limited the analysis of continuity of care. Conclusions Fundamental structural and implementation challenges persist toward realizing Loop’s potential as a shared system of asynchronous communication. Barriers include health information system integration; system, organizational, and individual tension for change; and a fee structure for health care provider compensation for asynchronous communication.

Objective: To address the gaps between need and access, and between treatment guidelines and their implementation for mental illness, through capacity building of front-line health workers. Methods:Following a learning needs assessment, work-based continuing education courses in evidence-supported psychotherapies were developed for front-line workers in underserviced community settings. The 5-hour courses on the fundamentals of cognitivebehavioural therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, motivational interviewing, and dialectical behaviour therapy each included videotaped captioned simulations, interactive lesson plans, and clinical practice behaviour reminders. Two courses, sequentially offered in 7 underserviced settings, were subjected to a mixed methods evaluation. Ninety-three nonmedical front-line workers enrolled in the program. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to assess pre-and postintervention changes in knowledge and selfefficacy. Qualitative data from 5 semistructured focus groups with 25 participants were also analyzed.Results: Significant pre-and postintervention changes in knowledge (P < 0.001) were found in course completers. Counselling self-efficacy improved in participants who took the first course offered (P = 0.001). Dropouts were much less frequent in peer-led, small-group learning than in a self-directed format. Qualitative analysis revealed improved confidence, morale, self-reported practice behaviour changes, and increased comfort in working with difficult clients. Conclusion:This work-based, multimodal, interactive, interprofessional curriculum for knowledge translation of psychotherapeutic techniques is feasible and helpful. A peer-led group format is preferred over self-directed learning. Its application can build capacity of front-line health workers in helping patients who suffer from common mental disorders.