BackgroundElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a procedural treatment that is potentially life-saving for some patients with severe psychiatric illness. At the start of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, ECT practice was remarkably disrupted, putting vulnerable individuals at increased risk of symptom exacerbation and death by suicide. This study aimed to capture the self-reported experiences of psychiatrists based at healthcare facilities across Canadian provinces who were delivering ECT treatments during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., from mid-March 2020 to mid-May 2020).MethodsA multidisciplinary team of experts developed a survey focusing on five domains: ECT unit operations, decision-making, hospital resources, ECT procedure, and mitigating patient impact. Responses were collected from psychiatrists providing ECT at 67 ECT centres in Canada, grouped by four geographical regions (Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and Western Canada).ResultsClinical operations of ECT programs were disrupted across all four regions – however, centres in Atlantic Canada were able to best preserve outpatient and maintenance care, while centres in Western Canada were able to best preserve inpatient and acute care. Similarly, Atlantic and Western Canada demonstrated the best decision-making practices of involving the ECT team and clinical ethicists in the development of pandemic-related guidelines. Across all four regions, ECT practice was affected by the redeployment of professionals, the shortage of personal protective equipment, and the need to enforce social distancing. Attempts to introduce modifications to the ECT delivery room and minimize bag-valve-mask ventilation were consistently reported. All four regions developed a new patient prioritization framework, and Western Canada, notably, aimed to provide ECT to only the most severe cases.ConclusionsThe results suggest that ECT provision was disproportionately affected across different parts of Canada. Possible factors that could explain these interregional differences include population, distribution of urban vs. rural areas, pre-pandemic barriers in access to ECT, number of cases, ability to control the spread of infection, and the general reduction in physicians’ activities across different areas of health care. Studying these factors in the future will inform how medical centres should respond to public health emergencies and pandemic-related circumstances in the context of procedural treatments.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-023-04832-7.