End-of-life care: pathways and evidence

Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically search, evaluate and report the state of the science of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS).

METHODS

We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and grey literature for articles evaluating or discussing electronic systems to facilitate sharing of information about advance care plans. Two independent review authors screened full-text articles for inclusion, assessed quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

In total, 30 articles and reports were included. Of the 26 articles, 14 were 'expert opinion' articles (editorials, discussion papers or commentaries), 9 were observational studies (cross-sectional, retrospective cohort studies or service evaluations), 2 were qualitative studies and 1 a mixed-methods study. No study had an experimental design. Quantitative studies described the proportion of people with EPaCCS dying in their preferred place, and associations between EPaCCS use and hospital utilisation. Qualitative, mixed-methods studies and reports described the burden of inputting data and difficulties with IT systems as main challenges of implementing EPaCCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the current scientific literature on EPaCCS comprises expert opinion, and there is an absence of experimental studies evaluating the impact of EPaCCS on end-of-life outcomes. Given the current drive for national roll-out of EPaCCS by 2020, it is essential that rigorous evaluation of EPaCCS is prioritised.

The Development of Pathways in Palliative Medicine: Definition, Models, Cost and Quality Impact

Palliative Care and its medical subspecialty, known as Palliative Medicine, is the care of anyone with a serious illness. This emerging field includes Hospice and comfort care, however, it is not limited to end-of-life care. Examples of the types of serious illness that Palliative Medicine clinicians care for include and are not limited to hematologic and oncologic diseases, such as cancer, advanced heart and lung diseases (e.g., congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder), advanced liver and kidney diseases, and advanced neurologic illnesses (e.g., Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease). In the past decade, there has been tremendous growth of Palliative Medicine programs across the country. As the population of patients with serious illnesses increases, there is growing concentration on quality of care, including symptom management, meeting patients’ goals regarding their medical care and providing various types of support, all of which are provided by Palliative Medicine. In this review article we define Palliative Medicine, describe care pathways and their applicability to Palliative Medicine, identify different models for Palliative Care and provide evidence for its impact on cost and quality of care.

How can end of life care excellence be normalized in hospitals? Lessons from a qualitative framework study

Background

There is a pressing need to improve end-of-life care in acute settings. This requires meeting the learning needs of all acute care healthcare professionals to develop broader clinical expertise and bring about positive change. The UK experience with the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway (LCP), also demonstrates a greater focus on implementation processes and daily working practices is necessary.

Methods

This qualitative study, informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), investigates how a tool for end-of-life care was embedded in a large Australian teaching hospital. The study identified contextual barriers and facilitators captured in real time, as the ‘Clinical Guidelines for Dying Patients’ (CgDp) were implemented. A purposive sample of 28 acute ward (allied health 7 [including occupational therapist, pharmacists, physiotherapist, psychologist, speech pathologist], nursing 10, medical 8) and palliative care (medical 2, nursing 1) staff participated. Interviews (n = 18) and focus groups (n = 2), were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using an a priori framework of NPT constructs; coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring.

Results

The CgDp afforded staff support, but the reality of the clinical process was invariably perceived as more complex than the guidelines suggested. The CgDp ‘made sense’ to nursing and medical staff, but, because allied health staff were not ward-based, they were not as engaged (coherence). Implementation was challenged by competing concerns in the acute setting where most patients required a different care approach (cognitive participation). The CgDp is designed to start when a patient is dying, yet staff found it difficult to diagnose dying. Staff were concerned that they lacked ready access to experts (collective action) to support this. Participants believed using CgDp improved patient care, but there was an absence of participation in real time monitoring or quality improvement activity.

Conclusions

We propose a model, which addresses the risks and barriers identified, to guide implementation of end-of-life care tools in acute settings. The model promotes interprofessional and interdisciplinary working and learning strategies to develop capabilities for embedding end of life (EOL) care excellence whilst guided by experienced palliative care teams. Further research is needed to determine if this model can be prospectively applied to positively influence EOL practices.

Continuation of non-essential medications in actively dying hospitalised patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to examine the use of 11 non-essential medications in actively dying patients.

METHODS

This was a planned secondary analysis of data from the Best Practices for End-of-Life Care for Our Nation's Veterans trial, a multicentre implementation trial of an intervention to improve processes of end-of-life care in inpatient settings. Supported with an electronic comfort care decision support tool, intervention included training hospital staff to identify actively dying patients, communicate the prognosis to patients/families and implement best practices of traditionally home-based hospice care. Data on medication use before and after intervention were derived from electronic medical records of 5476 deceased veterans.

RESULTS

Five non-essential medications, clopidogrel, donepezil, glyburide, metformin and propoxyphene, were ordered in less than 5% of cases. More common were orders for simvastatin (15.8%/15.1%), calcium tablets (8.4%/7.9%), multivitamins (11.6%/10.8%), ferrous sulfate (9.1%/7.6%), diphenhydramine (7.2%/5.1%) and subcutaneous heparin (29.9%/27.5%). Significant decreases were found for donepezil (2.5%/1.3%; p=0.001), propoxyphene (0.8%/0.1%; p=0.001), metformin (0.8%/0.3%; p=0.007) and multivitamins (11.6%/10.8%; p=0.01). Orders for one or more non-essential medications were less likely to occur in association with palliative care consultation (adjusted OR (AOR)=0.64, p<0.001), do-not-resuscitate orders (AOR=0.66, p=0.001) and orders for death rattle medication (AOR=0.35, p<0.001). Patients who died in an intensive care unit were more likely to receive a non-essential medication (AOR=1.60, p=0.009), as were older patients (AOR=1.12 per 10 years, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-essential medications continue to be administered to actively dying patients. Discontinuation of these medications may be facilitated by interventions that enhance recognition and consideration of patients' actively dying status.

The Liverpool Care Pathway: discarded in cancer patients but good enough for dying nursing home patients? A systematic review

Background

The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an interdisciplinary protocol, aiming to ensure that dying patients receive dignified and individualized treatment and care at the end-of-life. LCP was originally developed in 1997 in the United Kingdom from a model of cancer care successfully established in hospices. It has since been introduced in many countries, including Norway. The method was withdrawn in the UK in 2013. This review investigates whether LCP has been adapted and validated for use in nursing homes and for dying people with dementia.

Methods

This systematic review is based on a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science.

Results

The search identified 12 studies, but none describing an evidence-based adaption of LCP to nursing home patients and people with dementia. No studies described the LCP implementation procedure, including strategies for discontinuation of medications, procedures for nutrition and hydration, or the testing of such procedures in nursing homes. No effect studies addressing the assessment and treatment of pain and symptoms that include dying nursing home patients and people with dementia are available.

Conclusion

LCP has not been adapted to nursing home patients and people with dementia. Current evidence, i.e. studies investigating the validity and reliability in clinically relevant settings, is too limited for the LCP procedure to be recommended for the population at hand. There is a need to develop good practice in palliative medicine, Advance Care Planning, and disease-specific recommendations for people with dementia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0205-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Care Toward the End of Life in Older Populations and Its Implementation Facilitators and Barriers: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To inform health system improvements for care of elderly populations approaching the end of life (EOL) by identifying important elements of care and implementation barriers and facilitators.

DESIGN

A scoping review was carried out to identify key themes in EOL care. Articles were identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, organizational websites, and internet searches. Eligible publications included reviews, reports, and policy documents published between 2005 and 2016. Initially, eligible documents included reviews or reports concerning effective or important models or components of EOL care in older populations, and evidence was thematically synthesized. Later, other documents were identified to contextualize implementation issues.

RESULTS

Thematic synthesis using 35 reports identified key features in EOL care: (1) enabling policies and environments; (2) care pathways and models; (3) assessment and prognostication; (4) advance care planning and advance directives; (5) palliative and hospice care; (6) integrated and multidisciplinary care; (7) effective communication; (8) staff training and experience; (9) emotional and spiritual support; (10) personalized care; and (11) resources. Barriers in implementing EOL care include fragmented services, poor communication, difficult prognostication, difficulty in accepting prognosis, and the curative focus in medical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality EOL care for older populations requires many core components but the local context and implementation issues may ultimately determine if these elements can be incorporated into the system to improve care. Changes at the macro-level (system/national), meso-level (organizational), and micro-level (individual) will be required to successfully implement service changes to provide holistic and person-centered EOL care for elderly populations.

The characteristics of patients who discontinue their dying process - an observational study at a single university hospital centre

Background

End-of-life integrated care plans are used as structuring tools for the care of the dying. A widely adopted example is the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP). Recently, several concerns were raised about LCP care, such as a worry that diagnosis of dying might be leading to a self-fulfilling trajectory, including hastening of death. However, data on rates of discontinuation of LCP care are lacking. In an observational study, we therefore investigated the incidence, features and trajectory of patients who were discontinued from the LCP. We hypothesised that (1) it is common to discontinue patients from the LCP, (2) quality of life does not decrease for discontinued LCP patients, and (3) discontinued patients live longer than patients who remain within LCP care.

Methods

All adult patients who were diagnosed as dying in a German university hospital specialized palliative care unit were included in 2013 and 2014. Actuarial estimation of survival prognostication tools and a number of quality of life indicators were used for data collection. Survival time was analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Group differences in quality of life were tested using multivariate analysis of variance.

Results

159 patients were included in a digital version of the LCP. 15 patients (9.4 %) were discontinued later. Quality of life did not decrease for discontinued patients during LCP care (p = 0.16). LCP discontinued patients lived significantly longer than the remaining LCP subgroup (difference of means 296 hours, 95 % confidence interval 105.5 to 451.5 hours; difference of survival function estimates p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

When patients are diagnosed as dying, death is not the inevitable outcome of an end-of-life integrated care plan such as the LCP. Instead, it is common to discontinue the LCP care. Regular careful interprofessional assessments are important for identifying those patients who need to be discontinued from their end-of-life care plan. In this study, we found no evidence for harm by the LCP. We conclude that a correctly applied integrated care plan can be useful to provide good and safe care for the dying.

Trial registration

Internal Clinical Trial Register of the Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, No. 2015053680 (22 May 2015).

The changing nature of end of life care

Good end of life care (EOLC) for patients with incurable cancer is becoming a greater priority for oncologists in recent years. Frameworks such as the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) have often been helpful in guiding good care at the end of life. However, in the past year, the LCP has been phased out of use in the United Kingdom (UK), following concerns that it was poorly implemented. This review describes the LCP's origins in the UK, its strengths and limitations, and the concerns that prompted a review of its use. It describes the recommendations for change made by an independent review, and the alternative strategies now being developed in the UK to guide good EOLC. Although the LCP is still being widely used worldwide, the lessons learned from the UK can be widely applied in other countries.