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.

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

Guidance to tackle delays in nurse verification of deaths

  • 11 Comments

Guidance for nurses about the verification of expected deaths has been included as part of an updated guideline for professionals involved in care for people just before and after the end of life.

According to the charity that produced the guidance, delays in verifying deaths, which often occur in people’s homes, have caused unnecessary distress to grieving families and are largely due to staff not being clear about the legal requirements surrounding the procedure.

”We are aware how much registered nurses want to contribute to the care of the deceased by providing timely verification of expected death”

Jo Wilson

The supplementary guidance, produced by charity Hospice UK, outlines the legal requirements and also the competencies nurses should be trained in to carry out verification.

It emphasises that deaths should be verified within one hour within hospitals, and within four hours in community settings.

Families should be advised that the time the person took their last breath may not the same as the time recorded as verification of death, states the document, called Care After Death: Registered Nurse Verification of Expected Adult Death (RNVoEAD) guidance.

Nurses are only advised to use guidance so long as the patient’s ‘do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ document is signed, the death is not accompanied by any suspicious circumstances, and there is an agreement that a registered nurse can verify the death in the person’s clinical notes.

It should be used in situations where a death occurs in a private residence, hospice, residential home, nursing home, prison or hospital, and the charity notes the document can be used with patients who die under the Mental Health Act, including those to whom the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) legislation applies.

“We were made aware of some gaps in essential guidance for staff involved in care after death, especially nurses working in the community”

Marie Cooper

Organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the National Nurse Consultant Group for Palliative Care, the National Care Forum and Royal College of General Practitioners were involved in developing the document.

Jo Wilson, a member of the National Nurse Consultant group for Palliative Care who helped develop the supplementary guidance, said: “Nurses make an enormous difference to the care of the dying person.

“Having surveyed care homes we are aware how much registered nurses want to contribute to the care of the deceased by providing timely verification of expected death and support for bereaved families.”

Marie Cooper, a registered nurse and practice development lead at Hospice UK, added: “We were made aware of some gaps in essential guidance for staff involved in care after death, especially nurses working in the community, and have worked with partner organisations to address these.

“We are confident this additional guidance will ensure that all staff care are clear about their responsibilities, make the process of verifying deaths as smooth as possible and help avoid any delays that would cause distress to grieving families.”

  • 11 Comments

Readers' comments (11)

  • Also more attention needs paid to Advance Decisions, e.g. a patient who has specified that she does not want life-prolonging treatment if she develops dementia should not be given antibiotics for chest infections.

    These documents are legally binding documents and neither nurses or doctors should be breaching the person's declared wishes.










    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    I've not read the guidance yet - however, it is not a logical requirement that an 'expected death' must have a DNACPR decision in place. Also, the concept of 'unexpected EoL death' is flawed:

    http://www.dignityincare.org.uk/Discuss_and_debate/Discussion_forum/?obj=viewThread&threadID=785&forumID=45

    http://www.dignityincare.org.uk/Discuss_and_debate/Discussion_forum/?obj=viewThread&threadID=847&forumID=45

    And as Anonymous has pointed out, Advance Decisions are the documents 'which carry legal authority' - usually 'DNACPR Forms' are not legally an instruction: for some reason, this is typically reversed in the minds of many clinicians.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    The links don't work. On the off-chance that anybody would like to read the two pieces, you either need to go to the Dignity in Care website and find them on its discussion forum, or try a web-search using their titles. These are the titles, and putting them into Google or whatever might find the pieces:

    Markers and Timelines for End of Life Reconsidered: an attempt to bring order to chaos

    DNACPR is not correctly 'a proxy marker for' 'expected death'


    I wrote about some complications caused by the existence of CPR in a BMJ piece - I'm wondering if this link will work or not;

    http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i1494/rr-3

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Under NO circumstances should any deceased person, DETAINED BY THE STATE e.g. under a DOLS authorisation, in a care home or hospital or prison, have their bodies "cleaned up" or anything, such as dressings, modified prior to the Coroner's Enquiry EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE OFFICIALLY BEEN CERTIFIED AS DEAD.

    For the Coroner's Police / pathologist to decide whether their ENQUIRY, which lawfully MUST take place for a detained person, should result in
    - no postmortem or,
    - a routine postmortem or,
    - a forensic postmortem,
    they initially just visually examine the body. The results of this decide whether there should be a coroner's court hearing and INQUEST. In theory, an Inquest can result in a finding of "PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS." So when a patient dies, even if their own death, for lack of hard evidence through uneducated behaviour or reports by doctors or nurses, gets classified, and it is almost guaranteed it will, as "natural causes" it still means that if the Coroner finds that there are practices or omissions in care going on that could continue to cause more deaths in the place of detention, the coroner has the power to report this to high Government so that the government officially know that remedy is required to prevent future deaths and can take steps to ensure this.

    Also the relative has the right to be represented by their own pathologist at postmortem which they may want if they believe those receiving funding for providing care put profit before preventing avoidable harm. They could take action against you for breaching the law if you interfere with the corpse before examination.

    And if you as a nurse are stuck in a bad place, you may want to nurse properly rather than be pressured into neglecting your patients and being required be 2-faced to relatives? Delivering poor care is demoralising and bad news for your own health and career and I believe constitutes a major problem in nurse retention, thereby being a very cost-INeffective practise, detrimental to all.


    If pressure sores were present and infected matter were cleaned off prior to the examination, then the pathologist may omit to get a toxicology report. So sepsis or septicaemia could go unreported in a care home even though the home may have been rated by the CQC as "unsafe" and have issues with pressure relief. It would be immoral for anyone to aid such poor practice and, being unlawful, it could also become a matter of legal action against the nurse in charge and the responsible individual.

    If there is no visual evidence of pills or tablets in the stomach - even though the person may only have been on liquid medication, and the person may have been subjected to misuse of the Liverpool Care Pathway just prior to death - that is, no water or food even if they do want it, the pathologist will possibly omit to do a forensic report on stomach contents or a toxicology report on bloods. Theoretically this could even permit accumulated and therefore toxic doses of medication to be given to a vulnerable patient where embarrassment to the authorities could occur through a case in front of the Court of Protection finding the health and social welfare authorities negligent in their duties. (If you feel there is opportunity for this to happen then I recommend anonymously informing the CQC. )

    Otherwise it could permit inhumane, cost-INeffective NHS and LA authorities to subject an inconvenient, vulnerable frail patient to be systemically subjected to behaviour that would "advance" the "expected death."

    For the 5th richest nation in the world this would be entirely unacceptable to most people but those who have insufficient education on cost-effective and humane care of frail patients of all ages may foolishly imagine in their ignorance that it is less costly and therefore the thing to do in a cash-strapped health and social care environment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment


  • 'I wrote about some complications caused by the existence of CPR in a BMJ piece'

    Misleading readers into believing you are an authority on the subject.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not you again?

    Anyone genuinely interested in improving the quality of delivering care in this country would be interested in WHAT was being said not WHO said it.
    I see no claim by the author that he is an authority. Anyone is entitled to air their opinion. Your negative interpretations in lieu of consideration or simply reading without posting a response are a hinderance to improving care. So I am reporting it as offensive. You are his troll, are you not?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    I had typed something up at home, but I am interested [now that I'm back online and can read the subsequent comments] in the post by ANONYMOUS18 DECEMBER, 2016 11:30 AM.

    I'm considering sending an e-mail about one aspect of the guidance to a couple of my contacts, the implication the problem with the combination of DoL(S) and 'expected death' has been sorted out, and my draft e-mail asks:

    I’m also interested in the final item in the list on pages 1 and 2 under ‘inclusion criteria’. That section is as follows:

    The guidance applies to registered nurses, deemed competent, working within their care setting to verify the death of all adults (over the age of 18) providing all the following conditions apply:

    • Death is expected and not accompanied by any suspicious circumstances. This includes when the person has died expectedly from mesothelioma.

    • The ‘Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ document is signed in line with current guidance.4

    • There is agreement for Registered Nurse Verification of Expected Death documented clearly in the clinical notes.

    • Death occurs in a private residence, hospice, residential home, nursing home, prison or hospital.

    • It includes where the patient dies under the Mental Health Act including Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS).

    I was not aware that the difficulty with the combination of ‘expected death’ and DoLS had been resolved – lots of people, including me, have pointed out that it leads to ‘absurdities’ in places such as care homes, but if it has been resolved, can someone please point me at where the resolution is ?

    BACK TO WHAT I TYPED UP OFFLINE AT HOME:

    This guidance is still conflating ‘expected death’ with do-not-resuscitate: while most expected deaths should be accompanied by a do-not-resuscitate decision, it is not a logical requirement that you cannot have ‘attempt CPR but this would be an ‘expected death’’ [the patient might have a very strong reason for wanting CPR to be attempted, but the doctor who could certify might consider the death to be ‘expected’ and that CPR would fail – there is absolutely no reason why in such a situation the doctor can’t indicate ‘I would certify any death which did not appear to be unnatural, but the patient wants us to attempt CPR and CPR should be attempted’]. It is even possible, to construct a scenario when CPR should only be attempted if it were certain to be unsuccessful. You can find such a scenario in my BMJ rapid response at:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i26/rr-9

    I’ll reproduce the scenario here:

    A patient, John, is at home, and his GP has told him he seems likely to die within 6
    months, or perhaps a year.

    John then says this to the GP.

    'My wife, Jane, was previously married. Her first husband was involved in a car crash, he
    ended up comatose and on life support, and Jane was involved in one of those 'do we
    switch the machine off ?' situations.

    It almost totally destroyed Jane, psychologically - it took her years to recover. I have
    discussed this with Jane's adult son, and my position is that I am 100% unwilling to risk a
    repeat of that, because I think it would destroy Jane, mentally. Her son agrees with me, so
    this is my primary position - I am totally unwilling to risk a CPR attempt, if there is any
    chance at all that I would then be comatose and on life-support.

    I also don't want you to tell Jane about this, because Jane would say 'you should try CPR
    if it might work'.

    But, if you become 100% certain that any future CPR attempt could not possibly succeed
    in re-starting my heart, at that time I want you to tell both Jane and me about that.

    Because we have a 15 year old daughter, Laura, and Laura has learning difficulties. Laura
    is a big Casualty fan, and she thinks CPR works.

    So, if Laura finds me in arrest, or 'just dead', she is going to phone 999. If 999 turn up and
    do nothing, Laura is going to struggle to understand and accept 'they did nothing - they
    didn't try to keep my dad alive'. She would find it much easier to accept 'they tried but it
    didn't work'.

    So, provided the CPR would definitely not work, if Laura is the person who phones 999,
    then I want the paramedics to attempt CPR, for Laura's sake'.

    COMMENT: the ethics and law of this, seem blindingly clear ! But what the heck, does the GP say and do ?

    Late PS to

    ANONYMOUS18 DECEMBER, 2016 12:33 PM

    Go to my piece at:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i1494/rr-3

    Read its references 1, 2, 4 and 5 - if they are nonsense, and prove that I've no understanding of what I write about, please come back here and explain where I've gone wrong.

    Reference 2 is an analysis of 'expected/unexpected end-of-life death' and I also point out what we should be doing (which includes stopping using the terms expected and unexpected death for known EoL or very frail patients).

    Reference 1 points out that it is wrong to use DNACPR as a proxy for expected death.

    Those two references - 1 and 2 - are the two DiC pieces which I failed to successfully link to earlier, directly from NT.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    Sorry about the dodgy formatting above - I'll try again with that scenario:

    A patient, John, is at home, and his GP has told him he seems likely to die within 6 months, or perhaps a year.

    John then says this to the GP.

    'My wife, Jane, was previously married. Her first husband was involved in a car crash, he ended up comatose and on life support, and Jane was involved in one of those 'do we
    switch the machine off ?' situations.

    It almost totally destroyed Jane, psychologically - it took her years to recover. I have discussed this with Jane's adult son, and my position is that I am 100% unwilling to risk a repeat of that, because I think it would destroy Jane, mentally. Her son agrees with me, so this is my primary position - I am totally unwilling to risk a CPR attempt, if there is any chance at all that I would then be comatose and on life-support.

    I also don't want you to tell Jane about this, because Jane would say 'you should try CPR if it might work'.

    But, if you become 100% certain that any future CPR attempt could not possibly succeed in re-starting my heart, at that time I want you to tell both Jane and me about that.

    Because we have a 15 year old daughter, Laura, and Laura has learning difficulties. Laura is a big Casualty fan, and she thinks CPR works.

    So, if Laura finds me in arrest, or 'just dead', she is going to phone 999. If 999 turn up and do nothing, Laura is going to struggle to understand and accept 'they did nothing - they
    didn't try to keep my dad alive'. She would find it much easier to accept 'they tried but it didn't work'.

    So, provided the CPR would definitely not work, if Laura is the person who phones 999, then I want the paramedics to attempt CPR, for Laura's sake'.

    COMMENT: the ethics and law of this, seem blindingly clear ! But what the heck, does the GP say and do ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    At the risk of being accused of writing beyond my competence, I’ll explain the issues with ‘expected death’ and verification of expected death by nurses: and I write from the family-carer position. I am very annoyed by contemporary guidance, protocols and behaviour – they are both illogical and also unfair towards relatives and family carers, in the sense that behaviour is not proportionate in the balance between professional objectives and consideration for the mental fragility of just-bereaved people.

    We should stop using terms like ‘expected’, ‘unexpected’, ‘sudden’ in connection with the deaths of end-of-life (within the predicted final 12 months of life) or ‘very frail’ people/patients. We do need SOMETHING in the medical notes – so the guidance is almost correct with (page 2):

    ‘There is agreement for Registered Nurse Verification of Expected Death documented clearly in the clinical notes.’

    Except, you cannot define ‘expected death’ in any way which is not either too inclusive, or else insufficiently inclusive (see ‘Appendix 1’ for a simple proof of this). Under ‘Responsibilities’ and for doctors, the requirement is correctly expressed (page 3 - and it does not mention ‘expected death’):


    ‘Doctors will document in the patient’s clinical record that an RN can verify the death.’


    What we should have inside the notes, are statements by the doctor who could certify the death about ‘how surprised I would be by a natural death’. It honestly isn’t complicated:

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


    These are two notes which the GP (a consultant could do the same for hospital patients, but the problem these resolve is mainly when death in the community occurs) has to write in the medical notes as they become true - and CRUCIALLY all of the patient's carers, both professional and family carers, AND ALSO anybody else sharing a home with the patient, needs to know about these two notes. The two notes are:

    'I (the GP) would no longer be surprised by the natural death of this patient, but I would need to attend post-mortem before deciding whether to certify the death'

    and, at a later stage of clinical deterioration

    'I (the GP) will now certify any death which is not apparently unnatural, even if I am unable to attend post-mortem'.



    The second of those, is actually 'a statement of expected death' [as the concept is used in post-mortem behaviour] but if you use the statement, there is NO NEED to separately define 'expected death'.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Of course, some patients will die before one or both statements has been recorded, and GPs will vary – however:

    If the presence and times of these markers, and the time and cause of the death, were collected for all deaths, then many currently 'unanswerable' questions about EoL, could in theory be answered. A few examples are:

    It is accepted that the difficulty of accurately predicting when a patient is going to die, differs according to the illness. If you filter deaths according to the illness, you can then look at the two GP statements for each type of death, and that would tell you which types of illness had [in relative terms] harder-to-predict deaths: you might , for example, discover that it was much more difficult for GPs to predict when a patient suffering from heart failure would die, than for a patient with lung cancer.

    If a GP Practice had 4 GPs, then by comparing the times between the markers and the deaths for each GP's patients, you could see how varied or similar different GPs were in terms of how they predicted the deaths of their patients.

    By doing the same type of analysis but across different regions of the country, you could see 'if behaviour for community EoL death was the same in different parts of the country'.

    Etc - it is very easy to see how that type of analysis could be performed, if everyone used the 'marker system' and the results were available for analysis.


    CERTIFICATION

    Coroners have been complaining that too many deaths are unnecessarily referred to them, but from my family-carer or live-with relative perspective, my problem is not about what happens once the coroner is involved – my issue is with what happens when a patient is at home and ‘dies a bit early’ AND the GP CANNOT promptly attend the death. In this situation, you tend to get police involvement – my issue is with what happens in the hours immediately after a death when the police become involved and it is not clear whether the death will be certified.

    As I pointed out in my piece at:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4085/rr/654490

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Laurie R Davis (this series of rapid responses, 11 July 2013) has commented ‘It can have workload implications as there appears to be a widespread belief amongst care homes that patients who might die should be visited by their GP every two weeks.’

    The reason is probably the grossly inappropriate and hugely insensitive behaviour of police for EoL community deaths, when the death is not ‘expected’. In this context, expected has an obvious logical meaning: an ‘expected death’ is one which occurs after the GP has ‘promised to certify even if I cannot attend post mortem’ (with the safety provided by that promise, the coroner can hugely relax the investigative aspect of post mortem behaviour, effectively instructing suitably trained nurses/etc that ‘unless the death was obviously unnatural, just arrange for the body to be removed, try to keep the police out of it, and do not pester grieving relatives’).

    There is no guidance within current community policies, which properly addresses ‘I would not be surprised if the patient dies, but I would need to attend post mortem before deciding whether to certify’ – currently police behaviour tends to treat ‘early EoL death’ as very much akin to the sudden death of a believed-to-be-healthy 25 yr old. This is absurd, to put it mildly, when you are in the position of a person who is living with the patient. The transition from considerate treatment by nurses and the GP, to ‘being treated by the police like a suspect when my loved one finally died’, is a huge shock to the just-bereaved, and very ‘disturbing’. I also think such police behaviour reinforces long-term memories of the death itself, which is a bad thing, and is being ignored by policy creators.

    So the death of an elderly patient who ‘might die any time, but I (GP) cannot say whether tomorrow or in a year’s time’ is treated as a ‘sudden death’ unless the GP attends post mortem and decides to certify: and even an ‘expected death’ will become, from the perspective of the care home, ‘a death we, and the police, are not certain will be certified’ if the GP has not visited within the previous 14 days. The police have a strong tendency to ‘seek to investigate in depth’ any death until certification is effectively a certainty – this damages bereaved relatives, and is neither ‘balanced’ nor rational, if a patient is known to be ‘very elderly, final-year-of-life or has a condition which involves an ongoing but small probability of ‘dying at any time’’.

    And the care home, or a relative in the patient’s own home, cannot be certain that the GP will be able to attend promptly, when the death occurs.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    VERIFICATION IS NOT CERTIFICATION

    Coroners seem to be very reluctant to clearly explain 'expected death' - perhaps because in effect it amounts to 'a very light 'investigation' of deaths which the GP knows are going to happen soon, in order to keep the police away, because the police when involved, tend to 'harass the just-bereaved relatives''. Doubtless coroners are aware that some people, and some media, would scream 'You might be letting people get away with murder !' - which is a possibility, but the balance on the other side, is that 'aggressive police investigation' into the vast majority of home EoL deaths, which are overwhelmingly natural, leaves entirely innocent relatives with 'long-term trauma memories'.

    But, one consequence of the reluctance of coroners to explain this properly, is that many nurses believe that when they (nurses) verify an expected death, they are 'supposed to be linking the death to the known terminal illness'. Those nurses should only be confirming that the patient is dead, and noticing any obvious signs of an unnatural death - 'linking the death to the known illness' is CERTIFICATION, and ONLY a doctor who could certify the death, should be doing that. People such as nurses and paramedics, should definitely NOT 'be offering an opinion about why the patient died' [except for drawing attention to signs of an unnatural death].

    IT IS UNREASONABLE TO WANT TO KNOW ‘UNKNOWABLE THINGS’

    The police, seem to confuse not understanding why a person died, with evidence of possible wrong-doing: it is evidence of something unnatural, which is correctly evidence of wrong-doing. Typically if a frail elderly person dies, it will not be obvious why this has happened – but unless there is some evidence to the contrary, ‘live-with relatives’ should be treated as witnesses who have just lost a loved-one: the police have a nasty tendency to treat the relatives as ‘suspects’.

    I’m not going to develop these themes any further, partly because they are developed in Appendix 1, and partly because I’ve given links to my pieces about this topic previously.

    You don’t need to be ‘an expert’ to analyse this – you only need to do a bit of thinking !

    APPENDIX 1

    I will explain the problem with contemporary Community End-of-Life Death policies, and also why it would help if everyone - all of England's GPs and all of England's regions - adopted my 'marker' system, and also recorded and analysed deaths in terms of the presence or absence of these markers.

    At the moment, the behaviour for EoL death at home, varies from region to region, and depends on what the local NHS has agreed with the local coroner. The only policies in existence are invariably 'Expected Death' policies, but the term doesn't mean, as a family member might expect it to mean' 'my dad was expected to die'. It actually means 'the GP has indicated to the coroner, that even if the GP cannot attend the deceased patient, the GP will certify the death (i.e. provide a note to the coroner, stating 'what the patient died from') unless it appeared to be obviously unnatural. .

    In other words, the marker on my timeline of:

    'I (the GP) will now certify any death which is not apparently unnatural, even if I am unable to attend post-mortem'

    indicates an 'expected death'.

    The point of 'expected death' is to keep the police away from 'imminent natural deaths'. So any well-organised and competent region, will have in place arrangements which allow people such as trained nurse to confirm that the patient is indeed dead (Verify the death) and to arrange for the body to be removed from the house, and for the relatives to be given the necessary paperwork, etc, even if the GP cannot turn out.

    All other EoL deaths, are currently described as 'unexpected' or 'sudden', and the police tend to be involved in these deaths, unless the GP turns up before the police, and the GP decides to Certify the death.

    In England this promise that the death will be certified even if the GP cannot attend post-mortem, requires that the GP has visited the patient within 14 days before the death: the GP can decide to certify the death even if the most recent visit was more than 14 days previously, but ONLY IF the GP attends the death and examines the deceased.

    If the death wasn't 'expected', and the GP doesn't visit post-mortem and decide to certify the death because for some reason the GP cannot visit, the GP might still end up certifying the death, after a discussion with the coroner - this made an attempt to 'count the percentage of unexpected deaths' very complicated, in a paper you can find online.

    www.endoflifecare-intelligence.org.uk/view?rid=116

    Within the paper, the authors explain the complication of deciding what is or isn't 'an unexpected death', and they comment that 'it could be assumed, however, that referrals to the coronial service where no inquest and no post mortem were required were in fact not unexpected deaths because a death certificate could be issued following a discussion between the clinician and coroner only,' - and if that assumption is made they came up with a figure of 22% of deaths as being 'unexpected', whereas if you include 'there was a conversation with the coroner' in the description of an unexpected death, the figure for 'unexpected' deaths was 46%.

    Coroners seem to be very reluctant to clearly explain 'expected death' - perhaps because in effect it amounts to 'a very light 'investigation' of deaths which the GP knows are going to happen soon, in order to keep the police away, because the police when involved, tend to 'harass the just-bereaved relatives''. Doubtless coroners are aware that some people, and some media, would scream 'You might be letting people get away with murder !' - which is a possibility, but the balance on the other side, is that 'aggressive police investigation' into the vast majority of home EoL deaths, which are overwhelmingly natural, leaves entirely innocent relatives with 'long-term trauma memories'.

    But, one consequence of the reluctance of coroners to explain this properly, is that many nurses believe that when they (nurses) verify an expected death, they are 'supposed to be linking the death to the known terminal illness'. Those nurses should only be confirming that the patient is dead, and noticing any obvious signs of an unnatural death - 'linking the death to the known illness' is CERTIFICATION, and ONLY a doctor who could certify the death, should be doing that. People such as nurses and paramedics, should definitely NOT 'be offering an opinion about why the patient died' [except for drawing attention to signs of an unnatural death].

    The fundamental problem with 'expected death', is twofold: nobody is 100% sure 'how imminent a death should be, to qualify as 'expected'', and also doctors are not at all good, at predicting exactly when a patient will die.

    If the idea is to keep the police away from 'imminent deaths', the death would need to become 'expected' at least a few days before the patient died - it would be pointless the GP 'classifying a death as expected' when the GP expected the patient to die within 24 hours.

    As the GP must visit post-mortem if he has visited during the previous 14 days, 'expected to die within 14 days' looks like the upper limit.

    So, let us assume that 'when the GP expects the patient to die within 14 days', the death becomes expected, and the GP writes in the patient's notes:

    'I (the GP) will now certify any death which is not apparently unnatural, even if I am unable to attend post-mortem'

    In reality, no GP can be sure of when, a patient will die: if a GP says 'I think this patient will die in 10 days time', the GP could not honestly be surprised if the patient dies in 7 days time, or in 15 days time.

    It is easier 'for the thinking' of the next part, to switch the prediction to a different type. Imagine that the patient has got a fixed chance of dying, on every day, until he dies. So imagine that someone is very ill but is not 'getting worse' - so if the patient has a 1-in-5 chance of dying today, and if he does not die today, he has the same 1-in-5 chance of dying tomorrow (and so on - a 1-in-5 chance of dying, on every day until he actually dies).

    What, thinking about this patient, does the chance need to be, for the patient to be 'expected death' ? It turns out, that a 1-in-10 chance of dying on every day, is approximately 'death within 14 days' (about 4 in every 5 patients with a 1-in-10 chance of dying on every day, will be dead by the 14th day).

    The way EoL death at home is treated at the moment, the patient who the GP considered to have a 1-in-10 chance of dying on every day, would be 'expected death'. A patient with a 1-in-11 chance of dying would be 'unexpected death'. Even if the GP could be certain of the chance of dying [which the GP cannot be] - HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE ?

    If the GP believes his patient has a 1-in-10 chance of dying, then the patient's death is treated 'sensitively', the police are kept away from the death, and the live-with relatives are treated with care and consideration. If the GP believes the patient has a 1-in-11 chance of dying, then it is quite likely that the live-with relatives will be confronted by police officers, who far from being 'sympathetic and caring' tend to treat them 'as if they were potential suspects in a murder case'. This is CRAZY and it treats the 'early but known EoL death of a patient' as if it is very similar to 'the unexpected death of a thought-to-be-healthy 25 yr old'.

    The obvious way around this - to me - is for GPs to record that 'I would no longer be surprised statement':

    'I (the GP) would no longer be surprised by the natural death of this patient, but I would need to attend post-mortem before deciding whether to certify the death'

    AND FOR THE RELATIVES TO KNOW THAT. Then, if police 'start to interrogate the relatives', the relatives can say 'why do you seem to be surprised by my husband's death - the GP wouldn't have been surprised that he has died, so why do you seem so surprised ?

    I have no objection to police attending these 'earlier deaths', nor for the body to be retained by the coroner until the coroner has been satisfied about the cause of death, nor about the police asking relatives ONCE 'what happened'. But I object HUGELY to the police behaving as if these just-bereaved relatives are 'primarily suspects', repeatedly and insensitively questioning them at length when there is NO ACTUAL INDICATION of any wrong-doing, and seriously interfering with the relatives in the hours after the death (when, in my opinion, long-term memories are being formed, and when 'messing just-bereaved people about' leaves them with 'strengthened, which means worse, memories of the death of their loved one'. Not only, in my opinion, does that type of overly-intrusive police questioning leave bad memories of the questioning, but the lengthy and intrusive questioning stops the bereaved person's mind from 'distracting itself from the death', and you are consequently left with stronger memories of the death itself - and NOBODY 'wants to remember the death itself').

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Above comments reported

    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.

Related Jobs