Last weekend I was on call in hospital and cared for George,* a patient who was entering the last stages of life. George was no longer conscious so the Consultant and I spoke to his family, discussing which interventions to continue and which we felt were no longer benefiting him. Later in the day I reviewed George and found that he had developed respiratory secretions and was in some distress. I stopped his intravenous fluids, prescribed medications to treat his symptoms and reached for the Liverpool Care Pathway. And then I stopped. In the context of the recent press coverage and the LCP review what should I do?
More Care, Less Pathway
Last week the Independent Review of the LCP was published, entitled “more care, less pathway.” It has been greatly anticipated by those inside and outside healthcare, as the LCP has become a focus of polarised views on both the concept of the LCP itself, but more often it’s alleged misuse. The LCP is an approach to care including a complex set of interventions, developed to replicate within hospitals the standard of care for the dying found in many hospices. But in recent months the LCP has been called “The Death Pathway” amidst claims that is has been used to hasten death and free up beds. News of financial incentives for hospitals to ensure best practice standards were met were misrepresented in the press as “cash bribes for death pathway.“
During the recent press attacks on the LCP, many doctors and nurses spoke out in support of it, highlighting the fact that this is how they would wish to be treated at the end of life. Those who witness death are often more accepting of it’s inevitability and form strong views on what they want for their own last days and those of their loved ones. I publicly defended the LCP and signed the letter myself, and so I was initially disappointed that the report calls for the phasing out of the pathway. It seems counterintuitive that poor implementation and poor communication could lead to wholesale rejection of a set of standards that I have seen work so well in practice.
What’s in a name?
But on reading the report in full, I have to accept the thoughtful reflections of Baroness Neuberger. The most important people at the centre of the recent discussions are dying people and their families. For many of them the LCP is now too badly tarnished to be of comfort, and the term “pathway” is unhelpful in this context. We must listen to the evidence in the report, and be willing to find ways to move forward, striving for ever better care of the dying.
The report alludes to the fact that guidelines and standardised care plans are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not implemented professionally, expertly and compassionately. I couldn’t agree more. But I worry that without the LCP, staff who are inexperienced and under-confident in recognising and treating end of life symptoms will be left without clear guidance, and patients will suffer. We must not let that happen.
The report calls for a number of changes, at an individual, local and national level: better communication between healthcare professionals and patients and their families; specific clarification of the benefit and risks of artificial hydration and nutrition when someone is dying; education and training of all staff in acute hospitals; greater accountability; clearer documentation about patients’ advance care plans, and enhanced record sharing between primary and secondary care; and “a national conversation about dying.” Until we are able to discuss death openly as a society, with all it’s associated pain and uncertainty, those of us trying to support patients and families at this crucial time will continue to struggle to provide the best care. In the end this is not about protocols, it is about people.
The LCP is dead: long live the LCP
So, what did I do for George during his last hours of life last weekend? I did not complete the paperwork that would have formally put him on the LCP, but the decisions I made were identical to those I would have taken a month ago. The LCP was always designed to be a ‘personalised care plan’: it highlighted the need to communicate well with patients and relatives; and it provided guidance, not rules, on the use of artificial hydration and nutrition. I did what I always do: whatever I could to ensure that my patient died in peace, surrounded by his family. Easing his symptoms was perhaps the most important thing I did all weekend.
So while I lament the passing of the LCP, I will be forever grateful to those who created it; those who made high quality care of the dying in our hospitals a priority. I will continue to do what I can for any patients in my care who are dying. I will listen to their priorities, involve them and their families in crucial decisions, use all my professional knowledge and skill to ease their symptoms and be honest and compassionate.
I encourage you all to think about your priorities for your final days, and to contribute to a long overdue “national conversation about dying.” We must all play our part in making living and dying well the norm.
* name changed to maintain confidentiality