Search

Recognition of the importance of end-of-life care will enable improvements in the quality of care delivered to patients and their families. Australia is experiencing an increasing number of deaths, (many expected), with an aging population who are living longer, often with multimorbidity. This makes end of life care a priority. The last year of someone's life takes place in a complex healthcare system, with increasing pressures on care delivery, placing the spotlight on health service providers to ensure that teams and individuals are supported and enabled to provide such care. Two rapid literature reviews identified best practice principles and processes for delivering safe and high-quality end-of-life care in acute care, aged care and community settings. The reviews identified that end-of-life care is experienced within the whole health and social care system, including hospital admissions interspersed with care in the community, outpatient and emergency department visits and potentially admission to a hospice. Much of this last year of life is spent at home, which may be a personal residence, an aged care facility, prison, supported accommodation or even on the streets. Transitions across settings requires seamless care, as well as organisational readiness to deliver safe and culturally appropriate care. This is more important now with end-of-life care subject to quality assurance mechanisms within the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (2nd edn): Comprehensive care. This requires all sectors to work collaboratively when caring for someone at the end of their life in order to see positive changes in care outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed Australian clinical practice guidelines for life-limiting index conditions for the extent to which they acknowledged comorbidities and framed management recommendations within the context of older age and reduced life expectancy. A comprehensive search identified current, evidence-based Australian guidelines for chronic life-limiting conditions directed at general practitioners. Guideline content was analysed qualitatively before comorbidity acknowledgements were quantified using a 17-item checklist. Full guidelines were quality appraised using AGREE-II. Ten documents covering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, cancer pain, dementia and palliative care in aged care were identified. Most guidelines addressed one 'comorbid' condition and prompted clinicians to consider patient quality of life and personal preferences. Fewer addressed burden of treatment and half suggested modifying treatments to account for limited life expectancy, age or time horizon to benefit. Half warned of potential adverse drug interactions. Guidelines were of moderate to very high quality. Guidelines naturally prioritised their index condition, directing attention to only the most common comorbidities. However, there may be scope to include more condition-agnostic guidance on multimorbidity management. This might be modelled on the 'guiding principles' approach now emerging internationally from organisations such as the American Geriatrics Society in response to increasing multimorbidity prevalence and evidence limitations. General practitioners provide frontline care for a growing number of patients with multimorbidity, which may involve a life-limiting, progressive condition. Most guidelines for life-limiting conditions acknowledge comorbidity; however, there may be missed opportunities to warn clinicians on the potential for inappropriate polypharmacy, drug–drug interactions, and guideline-imposed treatment burden. Guidelines might consider incorporating 'guiding principles' of multimorbidity care and reframing management in the context of reduced life expectancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]