The effectiveness of the Liverpool care pathway in improving end of life care for dying cancer patients in hospital. A cluster randomised trial

Abstract

BackgroundMost cancer patients still die in hospital, mainly in medical wards. Many studies in different countries have shown the poor quality of end-of-life care delivery in hospitals. The Program "Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient" (LCP), developed in the UK to transfer the hospice model of care into hospitals and other care settings, is a complex intervention to improve the quality of end-of-life care. The results from qualitative and quantitative studies suggest that the LCP Program can improve significantly the quality of end-of-life care delivery in hospitals, but no randomised trial has been conducted till now.Methods and designThis is a randomized cluster trial, stratified by regions and matched for assessment period. Pairs of eligible medical wards from different hospitals will be randomized to receive the LCP-I Program or no intervention until the end of the trial. The LCP-I Program will be implemented by a Palliative Care Unit.The assessment of the end-points will be performed for all cancer deaths occurred in the six months after the end of the LCP-I implementation in the experimental wards and, in the same period of time, in the matched control wards. The primary end-point is the overall quality of end-of-life care provided on the ward to dying cancer patients and their families, assessed using the Global Scale of the Italian version of the Toolkit "After-death Bereaved Family Member Interview".DiscussionThis study can be interpreted as a Phase III trial according to the Medical Research Council Framework. In this study, the effectiveness of a fully defined intervention is assessed by comparing the distribution of the endpoints in the experimental and in the control arm.Research IDRFPS-2006-6-341619Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01081899

International palliative care research in the context of global development: a systematic mapping review

“…Systematic reviews (n=23) were the second most prominent study design, followed by Cohort studies (n=8). Just two RCTs were identified48 49 and only one economic evaluation 50…”

Strategies used in improving and assessing the level of reporting of implementation fidelity in randomised controlled trials of palliative care complex interventions: A systematic review

“…30,31,[61][62][63][64][65] Other strategies include role-play practice sessions with feedback to assess provider skill acquisition, [20][21][22]33 record and review of intervention sessions to assess provider skill maintenance, [20][21][22]33 assessment of providers' suitability for particular interventions 54 and appropriate training for trainees from different disciplines. 30,31,[61][62][63][64][65] For treatment delivery, key strategies are the usage of a treatment manual, [34][35][36] usage of an implementation checklist, [39][40][41][42][43][44] site visits/surveys to ensure adherence to intervention plan, 54,60 interviewing patients or caregivers on their experience, [23][24][25][26]29,32,45,[51][52][53]58 checking whether medications given were appropriate, 32,…”

Do palliative care health professionals settle for low-level evidence?

“…This team sought to systematically develop a rigorous programme of research that operationalises the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for evaluating complex interventions. [13][14][15][16] The concepts of evidence-based medicine are less than two decades old. As such, how do we as a global clinical community in palliative care support each other to develop the requisite critical appraisal skills?…”