Search

Background: Low socio-economic status can lead to poor patient outcomes, exacerbated by lack of integration between health and social care and there is a demand for developing new models of working. Aim: To improve connections between patients, local services and their communities to reduce unscheduled admissions. Design and setting: A primary care cluster with areas of high deprivation, consisting of 11 general practices serving over 74,000 people. Method: A multi-disciplinary team with representatives from healthcare, local council and the third sector was formed to provide support for people with complex or social needs. A discharge liaison hub contacted patients following hospital discharge offering support, while cluster pharmacists led medicine reviews. Wellbeing Connectors were commissioned to act as a link to local wellbeing and social resources. Advance Care Planning was implemented to support personalised decision making. Results: Unscheduled admissions in the over 75 age group decreased following the changes, equating to over 800 avoided monthly referrals to assessment units for the cluster. Over 2,500 patients have been reviewed by the MDT since its inception with referrals to social prescribing groups, physiotherapy and mental health teams; these patients are 20% less likely to contact their GP after their case is discussed. An improved sense of wellbeing was reported by 80% of patients supported by wellbeing connectors. Staff feel better able to meet patient needs and reported an increased joy in working. Conclusion: Improved integration between health, social care and third sector has led to a reduction in admissions, improved patient wellbeing and has improved job satisfaction amongst staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The demands and costs of health care resulting from increasingly ageing populations have become a major public health issue in the United Kingdom and other industrially developed nations. Concern with cost containment and shortage of resources has prompted a progressive shift in responsibility from state provision of care to individual patients and their families, and from the institutional setting of the hospital to the domestic home. Under the guise of choice and patient centredness, end-of-life care is framed within a discourse of the ‘good death’: free from distress and discomfort and accompanied by significant others in the preferred place, usually assumed to be home. The promotion of the ‘good death’ as a technical accomplishment enabled by pre-emptive discussion and advance care planning has sidelined recognition of the nature and significance of the pain and suffering involved in the experience of dying. There has been little research into the disparity between policy and professional assumptions and the lived reality of end of life. In this paper, we present findings from a qualitative study of how terminally ill patients, bereaved family members, and members of the public understand, anticipate, and experience death and dying. These findings contribute to an important and timely critique of the normative idealisation of death and dying in health policy and practice, and the need to attend closely to the real-world experiences of patients and the public as a prerequisite for identifying and remedying widespread shortcomings in end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deaths of people with intellectual disabilities are often unplanned for and poorly managed. Little is known about how to involve people with intellectual disabilities in end-of-life care planning. Aim: To explore the perspectives of people with intellectual disabilities, families, health and social care professionals and policy makers on end-of-life care planning within intellectual disability services. Design: A total of 11 focus groups and 1 semi-structured interview were analysed using qualitative framework and matrix analysis. The analysis was conducted inclusively with co-researchers with intellectual disabilities. Setting/participants: A total of 60 participants (14 people with intellectual disabilities, 9 family carers, 21 intellectual disability professionals, 8 healthcare professionals and 8 policy makers) from the UK. Results: There were differences in how end-of-life care planning was understood by stakeholder groups, covering four areas: funeral planning, illness planning, planning for living and talking about dying. This impacted when end-of-life care planning should happen and with whom. Participants agreed that end-of-life care planning was important, and most wanted to be involved, but in practice discussions were postponed. Barriers included issues with understanding, how or when to initiate the topic and a reluctance to talk about dying. Conclusions: To develop effective interventions and resources aiding end-of-life care planning with people with intellectual disabilities, clarity is needed around what is being planned for, with whom and when. Research and development are needed into supporting intellectual disability staff in end-of-life care planning conversations. Collaboration between intellectual disability staff and palliative care services may facilitate timely end-of-life care planning and thus optimal palliative end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]