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

Scrapping end of life care pathway was 'too extreme'


Axing the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) was “too extreme” a measure, a medical ethics expert has argued in a leading journal.

The decision to scrap the end of life care pathway, following a wave of bad publicity last year, has been dubbed “peculiar” by ethicist Dr Anthony Wrigley from the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele University.

Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Dr Wrigley said Britain was ranked as having the best end of life care in the world before the LCP was axed.

“The Neuberger Review has taken us both one step closer and one step further away from the goal of achieving the highest quality end of life care”

Anthony Wrigley

He said that the recent review into the LCP highlighted some cases of inadequate implementation of the care regime. But he said scrapping the measure on the basis of some poor use was like prohibiting the use of morphine because some do not know how to implement it properly.

In July last year the government announced that the measure would no longer be used, after an independent review concluded doctors had used the LCP “as an excuse for poor-quality care”.

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

Patients were left on the pathway for weeks without any review and some patients’ families were even shouted at by nurses for giving them water.

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, Mr Lamb added.

Norman Lamb

Norman Lamb

But Dr Wrigley said the conclusion of the Neuberger Review were “questionable”.

“What seems to be far too extreme, however, is the recommendation by the Neuberger Review that on these grounds the LCP should be phased out,” he wrote.

“One reason why this seems too extreme is that end of life care in the UK is of a quality that is world-leading, recently being ranked as having the best overall palliative care in the world.

“Moreover, one of Neuberger Review’s conclusions was that: ‘In the right hands, the Liverpool Care Pathway can provide a model of good practice for the last days or hours of life for many patients… But it is clear that, in the wrong hands, the LCP has been used as an excuse for poor quality care.’

“However, to recommend from this position that the LCP be phased out is to make a seemingly invalid inference.


Anthony Wrigley

“By analogy, one might construct a similar argument for many different treatments by claiming that, for example, the use of morphine should be phased out as a painkiller in medicine because its correct use is beneficial but some people incorrectly use it.”

He added: “The Neuberger Review has taken us both one step closer and one step further away from the goal of achieving the highest quality end of life care.

“It has taken us closer by helping to break a long-standing taboo that end of life issues are not widely and openly discussed, by highlighting reasons why there are failings in providing high quality care that are very entrenched and go beyond the failure to properly implement a particular approach, and by calling for more emphasis to be placed on this area in terms of training, support and development.

“It has also taken us a step further away by calling for the phasing out of a care pathway that is widely held to be an example of the very best approach to palliative care.”


Readers' comments (43)

  • Having helped to care for my mum, who was dying from Cardiac Failure, this carepathway was an absolute godsend. Without it we as a family along with home care and NHS nurses could not have managed her needs and her ultimate death with such dignity and kindness.

    This pathway was important for the whole care team including the family.

    Please bring it back, babies and bathwater reaction is my view!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    I'll be trying to track down Dr Wrigley's e-mail address.

    There was a basic problem with the LCP, in that in far too many instances clinicians were 'fitting patients to the LCP' rather than [correctly] using the LCP 'as an aid to correct behaviour'. This was clearly exacerbated, by (as Dr Wrigley has pointed out, and as I myself have pointed out on the BMJ website) 'a long-standing taboo that end of life issues are not widely and openly discussed', and also by a widespread incorrect understanding/interpretion of the Mental Capacity Act, and in particular of decision making while patients are mentally incapable.

    I agree, that there is a significant concern that end-of-life care might become worse after the LCP has been discarded: however, I also strongly dislike ANY 'approach to EoL' which can lose (as the [implementation of the] LCP clearly at times did, 'the patient is an individual, and not merely a 'clinical situation''.

    If TRAINING and UNDERSTANDING were good enough, then you wouldn't need 'the LCP' or anything equivalent to it - and if training and understanding are inadequate, things like the LCP are open to being misused.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    I've just downloaded the full paper - no problem with 'finding' dr Wrigley's e-mail address, as he includes it. Also, quite a bit to read, before I send an e-mail to him: I think we will agree about a lot, but I'm not sure if he will agree with me about decision-making.

    Anonymous | 22-May-2014 2:02 pm

    I don't understand why you think the LCP - as opposed to legal, decent, humane and individualised care and behaviour when patients are dying - is the requirement ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If it is to extreme to have it scrapped then why before the Nueberger review not recognise or follow the LCP and still do not.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • (Corection)
    If it is to extreme to scrap the LCP then why
    did some hospitalsl not recognise nor follow the LCP even before the Nuerberger report and still to this day do not recognise or follow the LCP.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • looks like they screwed up the headline!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone | 22-May-2014 2:21 pm
    once again you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about! I doubt you have the experience in caring for hundreds of terminally ill hospitalised patients in various different clinical settings such as medical, surgical, ICU, pediatrics, gerontology and various other specialties.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a champion nurse for the LcP I have found it a very useful tool in providing essential care at the end of life. It allows the nurse to follow guidelines and provided the best most appropriate care ensuring that nothing is missed or left in covered. It is regularly scrutinised to ensure that proper care is being provided appropriately tailored to that particular patient. As health professionals we would be losing an essential tool in providing the best end of life care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This article is spot on. The LCP model had only positive effects when practised in my ward which is acute medicine of the elderly based. There seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding from the general public, but if used correctly it is the most ethical way to treat a palliatively unwell patient. They definitely shouldn't have scrapped it, they should have used it as a basis to be worked on and improved.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree that scrapping the LCP entirely was a mistake. Personally, I understood it and applied it in it's best context. Michael Stone, although he seems to put an academic rather than an experiential view across about this, he does have a point about education and application being the key components. Perhaps, a review and adaptation followed by education and adequate manpower from Palliative care teams to implement it, would have been better than the present situation of doggy paddle in a busy and stresed NHS. Our Trust just stopped it immediately and we now have written care plans in the hospital notes which get lost in the following entries. It is time consuming for the palliative care team and may not engage the ward staff who are then looking after the patients 24 hours a day. Our palliative care team are wonderful and the care can be excellent but dying patients may not be a daily or even weekly occurance on many hospital wards. Guidance is so important. Our CQC inspection highlighted Palliative care as struggling. Not bad care but over stretched. I think the scrapping of the LCP has contributed. What a slap in the face our excellent team who do offer fantastic support.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results 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.