Search

Objectives: To explore the extent to which national policy in end of life care in England influences and guides local practice, to ensure that care for patients over the age 75 years is of a consistently good quality. Method: This paper reports on phase one of a larger study and focuses its discussion on the high-level (macro) determinants emerging from the analysis. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with professionals involved in the development of English policy in end of life care. Results: Factors influencing the quality of end of life care were stratified into three system levels: meso, macro and micro. English national policy was reported to be an important macro-level determinant of effective outcomes, and examples were provided to demonstrate how policy was influencing practice. Yet, the complexity of the area and the range of interacting contributory factors mean the value of policy alone is hard to assess. At the macro-level, concern was voiced around: whether policy was effective in tackling rising inequity; lack of mandatory leverage to exert change relating to end of life outcomes; the impact of ongoing infrastructural change on statutory services; workforce pressures; over-reliance on acute services and continued abdication of responsibility for end of life care to medical professionals supported by the continued dominance of the medical model of care. Conclusions: The links between the existence of policy at the macro-level of the system and the effective enactment of good practice remain unclear, although strategies are suggested to help achieve greater national consistency in end of life care outcomes. Policymakers must pay attention to the following: controlling the rise in localism and its contribution to regional inequalities; the impact of continuous infrastructural change together with increasing workforce pressures; encouraging broader professional and public responsibility for recognition and care of those at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews are increasingly being viewed as important sources of information for policymakers who need to make decisions on different aspects of the health system, often under tight time constraints and with many factors competing for their attention. Unfortunately, a number of misconceptions, or 'myths', stand in the way of promoting their use. The belief that systematic review topics are not relevant to health systems policymaking, that they cannot be found quickly, and that they are not available in formats that are useful for policymakers are but three examples of such myths. This paper uses evidence drawn mainly from Health Systems Evidence, a continuously updated repository of syntheses of health systems research, to counter these and nine other common myths, with the aim of changing the constraining beliefs associated with them, while improving the prospects for the use of systematic reviews in health system policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]