Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

New alliance to lead drawing up of end-of-life care guidance

  • 15 Comments

The government is expected to announce a new coalition on end-of-life care in response to the scrapping of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).

The Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People will bring together health and social care groups with the aim of improving care for people at the end of their lives.

It comes after it was announced last month that the LCP will be axed, following an independent review sparked by increasing criticism of the pathway and how it was being used in the national media.

The announcement of a new coalition is expected to be made by NHS England.

In a statement, NHS England said the independent review had called for a coalition “to lead the way in creating and delivering the knowledge base, the education, training and skills and the long-term commitment needed to make high quality care for dying patients a reality, not just an ambition”.

The new alliance will be chaired by Dr Bee Wee, national clinical director for end of life care at NHS England.

The Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council are among those who have signed up to the alliance.

The alliance will provide guidance on what needs to occur in place of the LCP and will work with end-of-life healthcare professionals, patients and families on what good care means.

It will also consider how to implement recommendations around the accountability and responsibility of individual clinicians, out-of-hours decisions, nutrition and hydration and communication with the patient and their relatives or carers.

The independent review concluded doctors had used the LCP - which recommends the withdrawal of treatment, food and water from some sedated patients in their final hours or days - “as an excuse for poor-quality care”.

The review panel, chaired by crossbench peer Baroness Julia Neuberger, said they were “shocked” and “upset” at some of the “distressing” cases of appalling care they had heard about.

Patients were left on the pathway for weeks without any review and some patients’ families claimed they were shouted at by nursing staff for giving their relatives water.

“The same stories keep emerging of poor care, appalling communications and of a lack of attention or compassion,” Baroness Neuberger said as she published her review.

“Among the worst stories were of people on the Liverpool Care Pathway for days going into weeks without communication or review or discussion.

“And also desperate stories of desperate people who are longing for a drink of water who were, through misunderstanding of the Liverpool Care Pathway and poor care, denied a drink,” she said.

“Stories of nurses shouting at families who give a patient a drink were frequent as were stories of people who were just left to get on with it with no regular observations or review,” she added.

In response, care and support minister Norman Lamb ordered all NHS hospitals to undertake reviews of care given to dying patients.

He also ordered hospital bosses to ensure that in the future every patient has a named senior clinician responsible for their care in their final hours and days of life.

Financial incentives to put people on the regime would also be scrapped, he added.

John Hughes, medical director at Sue Ryder, said: “We welcome the Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People, which was set up in response to the independent review of the Liverpool Care Pathway.  

“The range of organisations included in the group from across health and social care highlights the importance of the issue, as well as the need for a united front to work towards improving the care for people facing the end of their lives.”

He added: “We’re keen to work with the LACDP, and are supporting a series of workshops to elicit the views from frontline palliative care professionals on what good end of care looks like regardless of the care setting.”  

Are you able to Speak Out Safely? Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS.

 

  • 15 Comments

Readers' comments (15)

  • Right, before I say the serious point I've just got to mention the fact that as soon as the Daily Fail hear that the Chair is called Bee Wee this plan is doomed to fail.

    On a more serious point though, how is this going to be any different from the LCP? Nurses are still understaffed, training will probably be ad hoc at best and learning on the job at worst. The same problems will probably be highlighted under this heading as it was under LCP.

    My father was on the LCP in January and I fought for him to be placed on it as the doctor did not like it. It was implemented appropriately, the care he received was brilliant and they followed the care plan well. Just because the Daily Fail thinks that the NHS should be privatised these new plans are invented, but using the same old methods. Why are we ruled by a second class newspaper with shoddy journalism?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I submitted to Baroness Neuberger's inquiry that The LCP was probably OK when used within Hospice settings where the majority of patients are terminally ill? The LCP predominantly hit the headlines after it was "rolled out" on to acute hospital wards where it had a far greater risk of hastening deaths prematurely.
    I substantiate the above now that it is proven that my 63 years young wife was placed on the LCP when lung nodules were mistakenly diagnosed by an MDT for lung cancer as opposed to treatable pulmonary emboli.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I submitted to Baroness Neuberger's inquiry that The LCP was probably OK when used within Hospice settings where the majority of patients are terminally ill? The LCP predominantly hit the headlines after it was "rolled out" on to acute hospital wards where it had a far greater risk of hastening deaths prematurely.
    I substantiate the above now that it is proven that my 63 years young wife was placed on the LCP when lung nodules were mistakenly diagnosed by an MDT for lung cancer as opposed to treatable pulmonary emboli.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What's it going to be replaced with?
    When will the training start?
    How many new EoL specialist staff are going to be trained up and employed?
    What extra support will be made available to staff of all disciplines?
    What extra support will be made available to patients, carers and relatives?
    How much money will be spent on extra EoL beds/hospices/care-homes/care at home?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    I sent an e-mail to Hunt last week, asking him who now has an 'all-over perspective' on end-of-life care in the new NHS set-up: it used to be Tessa Ing at the DH, whose job title of Head of End-of-Life Care gave her some leeway to think about ALL aspects of EoL care. I'm still waiting for his reply - presumably the reply will say it is Dr Bee Wee, but I await the reply with interest. In particular, I await the DH's explanation of 'who would I e-mail with issues ?' which is effectively a question I posed.

    Anonymous | 31-Aug-2013 11:50 am

    What the LCP review said was needed, as I recall, was 'A national Conversation about Dying' - first get everyone to talk to each other to identify issues (which can seem very different from different perspectives), then work out how best to solve them. There are lots of issue to work on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • anon 4.31 - ?the majority of patients are terminally ill - as opposed to what? aren't all patients in hospices terminally ill?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi Mike
    It depends what your question is..... Dr Bee Wee is the lead clinician, but here are some other names, from an event planned for November http://tinyurl.com/opguvll. Looks like Anita Hayes will be a key person, as well as the lead nurses for GSF.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    The Nobody | 1-Sep-2013 0:33 am

    Hi Noboy,

    What I'm after is someone has a general grasp of all of the bits of EoL, including certification/verification (Tessa's job title included certification of death) and will actually answer e-mails ! Rather more interactively than 'we note your comments'. as lady neuberger noted, everyoen needs to be talking to each other, somehow.

    My actual e-mail to Hunt said this:

    Dear Mr Hunt,

    This is a combination of a question, and (perhaps) a comment.

    Prior to the spring reorganisation of the NHS structure in England, the DH had in post a Civil Servant whose job title was ‘Head of End of Life Care’. This person’s title, allowed her to legitimately ‘think about all of the EoL issues which came to her attention’.
    You removed that post, April 1st.

    As the thrust of most recent reports into NHS failings, has invariably included ‘the NHS does not listen to laymen properly’, and as there are still many very significant issues around end-of-life (some of which are by no means obvious to clinicians, because of 'perspective issues'), with whom would I now raise and discuss these by e-mail, as I previously found possible with Tessa Ing (who was the post holder) ?

    I’m not sure who now ‘thinks permanently about all EoL issues in the round’ and where exactly that ‘thinking’ is centralised, if anywhere – my impression is that the situation is now that ‘working topics/themes are looked at on a one-by-one basis’ by people who are often medics (and who might also be continuing to perform their medical work).

    If I’m right, there is now nobody, who has got the same sort of ‘overall handle and overall perspective’ on the entire ‘behaviour set around end-of-life’ that Tessa had – something I don’t see as an improvement in terms of ‘pushing EoLC forwards’,

    Regards, Mike Stone


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    The Nobody | 1-Sep-2013 0:33 am

    Should have been 'Hi Nobody' ! Anita Hayes rings a bell - but not a bell of 'I get e-mail exchanges with her' type.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am sure Mr. Hunt is far too busy and will consign it to the Trolling recycle bin!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.