Medical Assistance in Dying: Patients', Families', and Health Care Providers' Perspectives on Access and Care Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical assistance in dying (MAID) became legal in Canada in 2016. Although the legislation is federal, each province is responsible for establishing quality care. Objective: To explore patient, family, and health care provider (HCP) perspectives on MAID access and care delivery and improve regional MAID care delivery. Design: Qualitative exploratory. Setting/Subjects: We interviewed 5 patients (4 met the legislated MAID criteria and 1 did not), 11 family members (4 spouses, 5 children, 1 sibling, and 1 friend), and 14 HCP (3 physicians, 4 social workers, and 7 nurses) from June to August 2017. Measurement: Semistructured interviews, content analysis, and thematic summary. Results: Patients, families, and HCPs highlighted access and delivery concerns regarding program sustainability, care pathway ambiguity, lack of support for care choices, institutional conscientious objection (CO), navigating care in institutions with a CO, and postdeath documentation. Patients and families expressed additional concerns regarding lack of ability to provide advanced MAID consent, and the requirement of independent witnesses on MAID request forms and consent immediately before MAID administration. HCPs were additionally uncertain about professional roles and responsibilities. Ten recommendations to improve regional MAID care and the resultant practice change are presented. Conclusion: Quality improvement (QI) processes are essential to devise an accessible dignified patient- and family-centered MAID program. Ensuring patient and family perspectives are integrated into QI initiatives will assist programs in ensuring the needs of all are considered in structuring and staffing a program that is accessible, easy to navigate, and provides dignified end-of-life care in supportive and respectful work environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".