Search

Objective: To examine the association between primary and community care use and measures of acute hospital use in people with cancer at the end of life., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: We used Discover, a linked administrative and clinical data set from general practices, community and hospital records in North West London (UK)., Participants: People registered in general practices, with a diagnosis of cancer who died between 2016 and 2019., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: ≥3 hospital admissions during the last 90 days, ≥1 admissions in the last 30 days and ≥1 emergency department (ED) visit in the last 2 weeks of life., Results: Of 3581 people, 490 (13.7%) had ≥3 admissions in last 90 days, 1640 (45.8%) had ≥1 admission in the last 30 days, 1042 (28.6%) had ≥1 ED visits in the last 2 weeks; 1069 (29.9%) had more than one of these indicators. Contacts with community nurses in the last 3 months (≥13 vs <4) were associated with fewer admissions in the last 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) and ED visits in the last 2 weeks of life (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92). Contacts with general practitioners in the last 3 months (≥11 vs <4) was associated with higher risk of ≥3 admissions in the last 90 days (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.99) and ED visits in the last 2 weeks of life (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47)., Conclusions: Expanding community nursing could reduce acute hospital use at the end of life and improve quality of care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To understand healthcare professionals' perceptions of the benefits and potential harms of integrated care pathways for end-of-life care, to inform the development of future interventions that aim to improve care of the dying., Design: Qualitative interview study with maximum variation sampling and thematic analysis., Participants: 25 healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, interviewed in 2009., Setting: A 950-bed South London teaching hospital., Results: 4 main themes emerged, each including 2 subthemes. Participants were divided between (1) those who described mainly the benefits of integrated care pathways, and (2) those who talked about potential harms. Benefits focused on processes of care, for example, clearer, consistent and comprehensive actions. The recipients of these benefits were staff members themselves, particularly juniors. For others, this perceived clarity was interpreted as of potential harm to patients, where over-reliance on paperwork lead to prescriptive, less thoughtful care, and an absolution from decision-making. Independent of their effects on patient care, integrated care pathways for dying had (3) a symbolic value: they legitimised death as a potential outcome and were used as a signal that the focus of care had changed. However, (4) a weak infrastructure, including scanty education and training in end-of-life care and a poor evidence base, that appeared to undermine the foundations on which the Liverpool Care Pathway was built., Conclusions: The potential harms of integrated care pathways for the dying identified in this study were reminiscent of criticisms subsequently published by the Neuberger review. These data highlight: (1) the importance of collecting, reporting and using qualitative data when developing and evaluating complex interventions; (2) that comprehensive education and training in palliative care is critical for the success of any new intervention; (3) the need for future interventions to be grounded in patient-centred outcomes, not just processes of care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)