Development of the care programme for the last days of life for older patients in acute geriatric hospital wards: a phase 0-1 study according to the Medical Research Council Framework

Effect of the Care Programme for the Last Days of Life (CAREFuL) on satisfaction with care as perceived by family caregivers and geriatric nurses. A qualitative implementation study

BACKGROUND

The CAREFuL programme based on the Liverpool Care Pathway showed improvements in end-of-life care for patients dying in acute geriatric hospital wards. Importantly, it did not show positive effects on families' satisfaction with care.

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into reasons for absent improved families' satisfaction with care to make adaptations to CAREFuL.

METHODS

We planned a two-step implementation, this study reports the first step. We implemented CAREFuL as tested in the cluster RCT with extra attention to families' involvement, in 6 hospitals. We performed semi-structured interviews with family caregivers (n = 11) and geriatric nurses (n = 11) to ask about their experiences with CAREFuL. We used Nvivo12.

RESULTS

This study showed overall positive experiences. Family caregivers were satisfied by seeing their relative being comfortable, and by knowing whom to go to. A shared care approach within the team made nurses comfortable for entering the room. However, families did not always know the rationale for specific actions (e.g. cessation of nutrition) and some wanted to be involved more in the care of their relative. They often had to take initiative for receiving information. Finally, supporting leaflets were not always given or were given without any explanation.

DISCUSSION

We made adaptations to CAREFuL to improve families' satisfaction with care. A trigger sentence is added to support nurses in communicating with families. Professionals need to give a rationale for (not) doing specific actions. Leaflets can be used only as a support for direct communication. This adapted programme will be implemented in another 20 wards.

A novel care guide for personalised palliative care - a national initiative for improved quality of care

Background

Even when palliative care is an integrated part of the healthcare system, the quality is still substandard for many patients and often initiated too late. There is a lack of structured guidelines for identifying and caring for patients; in particular for those with early palliative care needs. A care guide can act as a compass for best practice and support the care of patients throughout their palliative trajectory. Such a guide should both meet the needs of health care professionals and patients and families, facilitating discussion around end-of-life decision-making and enabling them to plan for the remaining time in life. The aim of this article is to describe the development and pilot testing of a novel Swedish palliative care guide.

Methods

The Swedish Palliative Care Guide (S-PCG) was developed according to the Medical Research Council framework and based on national and international guidelines for good palliative care. An interdisciplinary national advisory committee of over 90 health care professionals together with patient, family and public representatives were engaged in the process. The feasibility was tested in three pilot studies in different care settings.

Results

After extensive multi-unit and interprofessional testing and evaluation, the S-PCG contains three parts that can be used independently to identify, assess, address, follow up, and document the individual symptoms and care-needs throughout the whole palliative care trajectory. The S-PCG can provide a comprehensive overview and shared understanding of the patients’ needs and possibilities for ensuring optimal quality of life, the family included.

Conclusions

Based on broad professional cooperation, patients and family participation and clinical testing, the S-PCG provides unique interprofessional guidance for assessment and holistic care of patients with palliative care needs, promotes support to the family, and when properly used supports high-quality personalised palliative care throughout the palliative trajectory. Future steps for the S-PCG, entails scientific evaluation of the clinical impact and effect of S-PCG in different care settings – including implementation, patient and family outcomes, and experiences of patient, family and personnel.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00874-4.

Implementing an integrated pathway to care for the dying: is your organisation ready?

BACKGROUND

Integrated pathways for care of the dying aim to promote the delivery of high-quality palliative care, regardless of access to specialist services.

AIM

To produce a heuristic technique to assist with planning and evaluating the integration of the care of the dying pathway into everyday work.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify research papers focused on the implementation of integrated pathways for care of the dying in acute hospital settings.

RESULTS

A total of 13 articles were reviewed using the four elements of normalisation process theory-coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. These results informed the development of a heuristic for organisational readiness.

CONCLUSION

The organisational readiness heuristic provides an evidence-based checklist for organisational leaders who are planning to introduce new, or evaluate current, integrated pathways for care of the dying. The next step is to trial the heuristic for feasibility in practice.

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.

Improving comfort around dying in elderly people: a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Over 50% of elderly people die in acute hospital settings, where the quality of end-of-life care is often suboptimum. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Care Programme for the Last Days of Life (CAREFuL) at improving comfort and quality of care in the dying phase in elderly people.

METHODS

We did a cluster randomised controlled trial in acute geriatric wards in ten hospitals in Flemish Region, Belgium, between Oct 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015. Hospitals were randomly assigned to implementation of CAREFuL (CAREFuL group) or to standard care (control group) using a random number generator. Patients and families were masked to interventaion allocation; hospital staff were unmasked. CAREFuL comprised a care guide for the last days of life, training, supportive documentation, and an implementation guide. Primary outcomes were comfort around dying, measured with the End-of-Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying (CAD-EOLD), and symptom management, measured with the End-of-Life in Dementia-Symptom Management (SM-EOLD), by nurses and family carers. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01890239.

FINDINGS

451 (11%) of 4241 beds in ten hospitals were included in the analyses. Five hospitals were randomly assigned to standard health care practice and five to the CAREFuL programme; 118 patients in the control group and 164 in the CAREFuL group were eligible for assessment. Assessments were done for 132 (80%) of 164 patients in the CAREFuL group and 109 (92%) of 118 in the control group by nurses, and 48 (29%) in the CAREFuL group and 23 (19%) in the control group by family carers. Implementation of CAREFuL compared with control significantly improved nurse-assessed comfort (CAD-EOLD baseline-adjusted mean difference 4·30, 95% CI 2·07-6·53; p<0·0001). No significant differences were noted for the CAD-EOLD assessed by family carers (baseline-adjusted mean difference -0·62, 95% CI -6·07 to 4·82; p=0·82) or the SM-EOLD assessed by nurses (-0·41, -1·86 to 1·05; p=0·58) or by family carers (-0·59, -3·75 to 2·57; p=0·71).

INTERPRETATION

Although a continuous monitoring of the programme is warranted, these results suggest that implementation of CAREFuL might improve care during the last days of life for patients in acute geriatric hospital wards.

FUNDING

The Flemish Government Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology and the Belgian Cancer Society "Kom Op Tegen Kanker".

End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2013 in the Cochrane Library. In many clinical areas, integrated care pathways are utilised as structured multidisciplinary care plans that detail essential steps in caring for patients with specific clinical problems. In particular, care pathways for the dying have been developed as a model to improve care of patients who are in the last days of life. The care pathways were designed with an aim of ensuring that the most appropriate management occurs at the most appropriate time, and that it is provided by the most appropriate health professional. Since the last update, there have been sustained concerns about the safety of implementing end-of-life care pathways, particularly in the United Kingdom (UK). Therefore, there is a significant need for clinicians and policy makers to be informed about the effects of end-of-life care pathways via a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of end-of-life care pathways, compared with usual care (no pathway) or with care guided by another end-of-life care pathway across all healthcare settings (e.g. hospitals, residential aged care facilities, community).In particular, we aimed to assess the effects on symptom severity and quality of life of people who are dying, or those related to the care, such as families, carers and health professionals, or a combination of these.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, review articles, trial registries and reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the original search in September 2009, and the second updated search in July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials or high quality controlled before-and-after studies comparing use versus non-use of an end-of-life care pathway in caring for the dying.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the results of the searches against the predetermined criteria for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 3028 titles, and included one Italian cluster RCT with 16 general medicine wards (inpatient units in hospitals) and 232 carers of cancer patients in this updated review. We judged the study to be at a high risk of bias overall, mainly due to a lack of blinding and rates of attrition. Only 34% of the participants (range 14% to 75% on individual wards) were cared for in accordance with the care pathway as planned. However, these issues were to be expected due to the nature of the intervention and condition. The study population was all cancer patients in their last days of life. Participants were allocated to care using the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP-I, Italian version of a continuous quality improvement programme of end-of-life care) or to standard care. The primary outcomes of this review were physical symptom severity, psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and any adverse effects. Physical symptom severity was assessed as overall control of pain, breathlessness, and nausea and vomiting. There was very low quality evidence of a difference in overall control of breathlessness that favoured the Liverpool Care Pathway group compared to usual care: the study reported an odds ratio (OR) of 2.0 with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.1 to 3.8. Very low quality evidence of no difference was found for pain (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.6, P = 0.461) and nausea and vomiting (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.7 to 3.2, P = 0.252). None of the other primary outcomes were assessed by the study. Limited data on advance care planning were collected by the study authors, making results for this secondary outcome unreliable. None of our other secondary outcomes were assessed by the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited available evidence concerning the clinical, physical, psychological or emotional effectiveness of end-of-life care pathways.