Good care at the end of life, not hastening death

Kreeger, Lulu

doi:10.1136/bmj.39577.425544.3a

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…His letter prompted a robust response from Ellershaw, in an editorial seeking to correct ‘… dangerous misconceptions about the purpose and use of the LCP’ 71 . Other letters in support of the LCP were also published 72 – 74 . Treloar subsequently apologised for his association of the LCP with continuous deep sedation 75 , but persisted with his critique of the suitability of its criteria of use for frail older patients.…”

Section: Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

Seymour

Clark

2018

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (‘LCP’) was an integrated care pathway (ICP) recommended by successive governments in England and Wales to improve end-of-life care. It was discontinued in 2014 following mounting criticism and a national review. Understanding the problems encountered in the roll out of the LCP has crucial importance for future policy making in end of life care. We provide an in-depth account of LCP development and implementation with explanatory theoretical perspectives. We address three critical questions: 1) why and how did the LCP come to prominence as a vehicle of policy and practice? 2) what factors contributed to its demise? 3) what immediate implications and lessons resulted from its withdrawal? Methods: We use primary and secondary sources in the public domain to assemble a critical and historical review. We also draw on the ‘boundary object’ concept and on wider analyses of the use of ICPs. Results: The rapidity of transfer and translation of the LCP reflected uncritical enthusiasm for ICPs in the early 2000s. While the LCP had some weaknesses in its formulation and implementation, it became the bearer of responsibility for all aspects of NHS end-of-life care. It exposed fault lines in the NHS, provided a platform for debates about the ‘evidence’ required to underpin innovations in palliative care and became a conduit of discord about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ practice in care of the dying. It also fostered a previously unseen critique of assumptions within palliative care. Conclusions: In contrast to most observers of the LCP story who refer to the dangers of scaling up clinical interventions without an evidence base, we call for greater assessment of the wider risks and more careful consideration of the unintended consequences that might result from the roll out of new end-of-life interventions.

show abstract

Section: Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

Seymour

Clark

2018

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…His letter prompted a robust response from Ellershaw, in an editorial seeking to correct ‘… dangerous misconceptions about the purpose and use of the LCP’ 69 . Other letters in support of the LCP were also published 70– 72 . Treloar subsequently apologised for his association of the LCP with continuous deep sedation 73 , but persisted with his critique of the suitability of its criteria of use for frail older patients.…”

Section: Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

Seymour¹,

Clark²

2018

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (‘the LCP’) was an integrated care pathway (ICP) recommended by successive governments in England and Wales to improve end-of-life care, using insights from hospice and palliative care. It was discontinued in 2014 following mounting criticism and a national review. The ensuing debate among clinicians polarised between ‘blaming’ of the LCP and regret at its removal. Employing the concept of ‘boundary objects’, we aimed to address three questions: 1) why and how did the LCP come to prominence as a vehicle of policy and practice 2) what factors contributed to its demise? 3) what immediate implications and lessons resulted from its withdrawal? Methods : We use primary and secondary sources in the public domain to assemble a critical and historical review. Results : The rapidity of transfer and translation of the LCP reflected uncritical enthusiasm for ICPs in the early 2000s. The subsequent LCP ‘scandal’ demonstrated the power of social media in creating knowledge, as well as conflicting perceptions about end-of-life interventions. While the LCP had some weaknesses in its formulation and implementation, it became the bearer of responsibility for all aspects of NHS end-of-life care. This was beyond its original remit. It exposed fault lines in the NHS, provided a platform for debates about the ‘evidence’ required to underpin innovations in palliative care and became a conduit of discord about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ practice in care of the dying. It also fostered a previously unseen critique of assumptions within palliative care. Conclusions : In contrast to most observers of the LCP story who refer to the dangers of scaling up clinical interventions without an evidence base, we call for greater assessment of the wider risks and more careful consideration of the unintended consequences that might result from the roll out of new end-of-life interventions.

show abstract

Good care at the end of life, not hastening death

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About