Cited by 62Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Improving the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) process: A qualitative study of family caregiver perspectives

Hales, Brigette M., Bean, Sally, Isenberg-Grzeda, Elie, Ford, Bill, Selby, Debbie·2019·Palliative and Supportive Care

Abstract

Objective: The road to legalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) across Canada has largely focused on legislative details such as eligibility and establishment of regulatory clinical practice standards. Details on how to implement high-quality, person-centered MAID programs at the institutional level are lacking. This study seeks to understand what improvement opportunities exist in the delivery of the MAID process from the family caregiver perspective. Method: This multi-methods study design used structured surveys, focus groups, and unstructured e-mail/phone conversations to gather experiential feedback from family caregivers of patients who underwent MAID between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. Data were combined and a qualitative, descriptive approach used to derive themes within family perspectives. Result: Improvement themes identified through the narrative data (48% response rate) were grouped in two categories: operational and experiential aspects of MAID. Operational themes included: process clarity, scheduling challenges and the 10-day period of reflection. Experiential themes included clinician objection/judgment, patient and family privacy, and bereavement resources. Significance of results: To our knowledge, this is the first time that family caregivers’ perspectives on the quality of the MAID process have been explored. Although practice standards have been made available to ensure all legislated components of the MAID process are completed, detailed guidance for how to best implement patient and family centered MAID programs at the institutional level remain limited. This study provides guidance for ways in which we can enhance the quality of MAID from the perspective of family caregivers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s147895151900004x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hales, B. M., Bean, S., Isenberg-Grzeda, E., Ford, B., & Selby, D.
Affiliations
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Hales, Brigette M.
Venue
Palliative and Supportive Care
Published
2019-03-19
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
590-595
ISSN
  • 1478-9515 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-9523
OpenAlex
W2923663325
Cited by
62
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Palliative & Supportive Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
medical assistance in dying, family caregivers, person-centred care, clinical judgment, bereavement support, appointment scheduling, institutional implementation, end-of-life care
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Assistance, Ontario, Surveys and Questionnaires, Caregivers, Suicide, Assisted, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review