In economically developed countries there is a rapidly increasing number of older people living and dying in care homes. The relative isolation of nursing care homes from the development of palliative care, the poor retention and recruitment of staff, and the lack of medical cover, hinder the provision of quality end-of-life care. End-of-life care strategies internationally highlight the benefit of using tools to help improve end-of-life care in care homes. All seven private nursing care homes within one district in Scotland undertook to implement, as a package, two end-of-life care tools, namely, the Gold Standards Framework for Care Homes (GSFCH) and an adapted Liverpool Care Pathway for Care Homes (LCP). A model of high facilitation, visiting the homes every 10-14 days with significant in-house staff training, was used to implement the 18-month programme. The notes of 228 residents who had died prior to and during the project were examined, alongside a staff audit looking at the effect that the project had on practice. A nurse researcher undertook qualitative interviews of bereaved relatives, pre-/post-implementation. This paper reports the results of an in-depth evaluation of professional practices and residents outcomes. There was a highly statistically significant increase in use of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) documentation, advance care planning and use of the LCP. An apparent reduction in unnecessary hospital admissions and a reduction in hospital deaths from 15% deaths pre-study to 8% deaths post-study were also found. Further work is needed to assess the optimum input required for successful implementation.

No abstract

Background: Internationally, policy calls for care homes to provide reliably good end-of-life care. We undertook a 20-month project to sustain palliative care improvements achieved by a previous intervention. Aim: To sustain a high standard of palliative care in seven UK nursing care homes using a lower level of support than employed during the original project and to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention. Design: Two palliative care nurse specialists each spent one day per week providing support and training to seven care homes in Scotland, United Kingdom; after death audit data were collected each month and analysed. Results: During the sustainability project, 132 residents died. In comparison with the initial intervention, there were increases in (a) the proportion of deceased residents with an anticipatory care plan in place (b) the proportion of those with Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation documentation in place and (c) the proportion of those who were on the Liverpool Care Pathway when they died. Furthermore, there was a reduction in inappropriate hospital deaths of frail and elderly residents with dementia. However, overall hospital deaths increased. Conclusions: A lower level of nursing support managed to sustain and build on the initial outcomes. However, despite increased adoption of key end-of-life care tools, hospital deaths were higher during the sustainability project. While good support from palliative care nurse specialists and GPs can help ensure that key processes remain in place, stable management and key champions are vital to ensure that a palliative care approach becomes embedded within the culture of the care home.

ObjectivesUnderstanding patients’ preferences for place of death and supporting patients to achieve their wishes has become a priority. This study aims to: (1) examine preferences of patients referred to a specialist palliative care service; (2) determine whether preferences of those who have been admitted as hospice inpatients differ from those who have not; (3) identify reasons why preferred place of death (PPD) is sometimes not recorded; and (iv) investigate whether nominating a PPD relates to actual place of death.MethodPPD information was collected as part of standard care for all patients referred to a specialist palliative care service. Case notes were reviewed retrospectively for 1127 patients who died under the care of the service.ResultsSeventy-seven percent of the patients expressed a PPD, a further 21% of patients had documented reasons for PPD remaining unknown. Eighty percent of patients who had never been admitted to the hospice wanted to die at home. In contrast, 79% of those with at least one hospice inpatient admission wanted to die in the hospice. Patients who had an unknown PPD were three times more likely to die in hospital.ConclusionsMost patients in a specialist palliative care setting are willing to express a PPD. Preferences differ for patients who had never been admitted as hospice inpatients from those who have had at least one inpatient stay. Routine and ongoing assessment of PPD are recommended to support patients’ wishes at the end of life.

This paper assesses different methods of evaluating pain management. We used the established methods of pain prevalence measurement and the Pain Management Index (PMI) to compare pain management between two groups who might be expected to have different outcomes. We also developed and used a method to assess how quickly pain was controlled for each group (time to pain control). We compared a group of cancer patients (n=712) managed by general practitioners in the community (Community Group) and a group of patients (n=152) treated in a Specialist Palliative Care Unit (Hospice Group) using all methods. The time to pain control method identified a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.01 log rank test), with the Hospice Group achieving pain control significantly faster. By contrast, neither the pain prevalence method nor the PMI could detect any difference (P=0.11 Wilcoxon test). The established methods of pain prevalence measurement and PMI are limited by their inability to measure pain over time and to assess prescribers' response to changing pain. Dynamic methods that evaluate changes in prescribing and pain levels over time must be developed in order to accurately assess pain management.