Another good article from the UK: Ensuring patient choices about dignity and place of death are respected at the end of life | Practice | Nursing Times
Although only 25% of palliative care is concerned with controlling physical symptoms (Lloyd-Williams, 2003), caring for the dying has traditionally focused on physical aspects of care. Research on improving end of life care shows that patient distress is alleviated by using psychosocial interventions for one third to half of those with cancer (Carlson and Bultz, 2004). Although the evidence shows that patients make fewer visits to their GP after psychological interventions (Chiles et al, 2006), in practice this aspect of care is not emphasised (Cunningham, 2000).
This article offers a critical review of the effect on patient outcomes of meeting their needs at the end of life, and includes those with long term conditions as well as cancer.
Alleviating distress when patients no longer feel connected with the world and are angry that their body has failed them can be challenging for healthcare professionals. Patients may find it difficult to discuss threats to their personhood and it is only through effective communication and interpersonal skills that nurses can address these issues (Lloyd-Williams, 2003).
Evidence suggests that real change in end of life care will only happen if patients are allowed to prepare for and face death by expressing fears, hopes and desires (Neuberger, 2004). Some management strategies prevent this, for example, medication to alleviate anxiety may also block fear. As a result, the source of fear or anxiety will not be understood and the cause will not be addressed. Patients have reasons to be afraid and allowing them to express their anxiety is crucial (Cannaerts et al, 2004).
The importance of psychosocial care should never be underestimated and psychological management should be considered equally important as physical management across primary, acute and tertiary care (Lloyd-Williams, 2003). All healthcare professionals need to understand and recognise patients with complex psychosocial needs and be able to make comprehensive assessments of the distressing issues that patients may face.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2004) guidelines recognised the importance of addressing patients’ needs and preferences. The National Preferred Priorities for Care Review Team’s (2007) Preferred Priorities for Care document (updated from the original 2004 Preferred Placeof Care document) also emphasised this. The 2007 version encourages sharing of information and good communication, documenting patients’ and carers’ choice of care. It allows multidisciplinary teams and other services to plan and reduce inappropriate admissions and interventions, and patients to prepare for the future and think about their values and beliefs.
However, the Preferred Priorities for Care document acknowledges that resources may not be available to meet the individual needs expressed by patients. It is possible that carers may become tired or ill and informal carers may need more support to understand the complexity of looking after dying patients (Hudson et al, 2005).
Other resources should therefore be in place, especially for those who have no family or friends, or live in a deprived area where hospital admission is highly likely due to smoking, poor diet and alcohol related disease (Welch et al, 2010).
The title, Preferred Priorities for Care (National PPC Review Team, 2007) reflects the importance of patients’ preferences and recognises that place of death is only one of the decisions to be made by those facing the end of life.
While 2004 version of Preferred Place of Care placed more emphasis on the patient, that is, where care is provided, the new one places more emphasis on the care provider and prioritising how care is given. In reality the key difference is that the later version puts a greater emphasis on supporting people who choose to die at home, which has resource implications, versus healthcare professionals setting priorities and selecting the level of healthcare provided.
More patients are dying with multiple organ failure, blood dyscrasias and metabolic abnormalities and many choose to die at home (O’Mahony et al, 2000).
Although recent guidance stresses the importance of patients’ individual preferences, there are often situations where families expect district nurses and other healthcare professionals to collude and withhold information from patients to affect the outcome of where they die. The case study in Box 1 highlights this issue.
One problem facing patients and families is that it is difficult to guarantee 24 hour care at home because of lack of funding and infrastructure to support home care services. Providing 24 hour care is expensive but there is evidence that by focusing on the behavioural, clinical and operational waste in the NHS, cost can be reduced to free up funds for 24 hour care in the home (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008). Given that government borrowing currently stands at approximately £175bn it is likely that spending cuts will need to be made in the NHS (The Lancet, 2010).
Savings could be invested in exploring new ways of enabling 24 hour care, for example by using advances in telecare and telehealth (Smith et al, 2005).
Although only 25% of palliative care is concerned with controlling physical symptoms (Lloyd-Williams, 2003), caring for the dying has traditionally focused on physical aspects of care. Research on improving end of life care shows that patient distress is alleviated by using psychosocial interventions for one third to half of those with cancer (Carlson and Bultz, 2004). Although the evidence shows that patients make fewer visits to their GP after psychological interventions (Chiles et al, 2006), in practice this aspect of care is not emphasised (Cunningham, 2000).
This article offers a critical review of the effect on patient outcomes of meeting their needs at the end of life, and includes those with long term conditions as well as cancer.
Alleviating distress when patients no longer feel connected with the world and are angry that their body has failed them can be challenging for healthcare professionals. Patients may find it difficult to discuss threats to their personhood and it is only through effective communication and interpersonal skills that nurses can address these issues (Lloyd-Williams, 2003).
Evidence suggests that real change in end of life care will only happen if patients are allowed to prepare for and face death by expressing fears, hopes and desires (Neuberger, 2004). Some management strategies prevent this, for example, medication to alleviate anxiety may also block fear. As a result, the source of fear or anxiety will not be understood and the cause will not be addressed. Patients have reasons to be afraid and allowing them to express their anxiety is crucial (Cannaerts et al, 2004).
The importance of psychosocial care should never be underestimated and psychological management should be considered equally important as physical management across primary, acute and tertiary care (Lloyd-Williams, 2003). All healthcare professionals need to understand and recognise patients with complex psychosocial needs and be able to make comprehensive assessments of the distressing issues that patients may face.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2004) guidelines recognised the importance of addressing patients’ needs and preferences. The National Preferred Priorities for Care Review Team’s (2007) Preferred Priorities for Care document (updated from the original 2004 Preferred Placeof Care document) also emphasised this. The 2007 version encourages sharing of information and good communication, documenting patients’ and carers’ choice of care. It allows multidisciplinary teams and other services to plan and reduce inappropriate admissions and interventions, and patients to prepare for the future and think about their values and beliefs.
However, the Preferred Priorities for Care document acknowledges that resources may not be available to meet the individual needs expressed by patients. It is possible that carers may become tired or ill and informal carers may need more support to understand the complexity of looking after dying patients (Hudson et al, 2005).
Other resources should therefore be in place, especially for those who have no family or friends, or live in a deprived area where hospital admission is highly likely due to smoking, poor diet and alcohol related disease (Welch et al, 2010).
The title, Preferred Priorities for Care (National PPC Review Team, 2007) reflects the importance of patients’ preferences and recognises that place of death is only one of the decisions to be made by those facing the end of life.
While 2004 version of Preferred Place of Care placed more emphasis on the patient, that is, where care is provided, the new one places more emphasis on the care provider and prioritising how care is given. In reality the key difference is that the later version puts a greater emphasis on supporting people who choose to die at home, which has resource implications, versus healthcare professionals setting priorities and selecting the level of healthcare provided.
More patients are dying with multiple organ failure, blood dyscrasias and metabolic abnormalities and many choose to die at home (O’Mahony et al, 2000).
Although recent guidance stresses the importance of patients’ individual preferences, there are often situations where families expect district nurses and other healthcare professionals to collude and withhold information from patients to affect the outcome of where they die. The case study in Box 1 highlights this issue.
One problem facing patients and families is that it is difficult to guarantee 24 hour care at home because of lack of funding and infrastructure to support home care services. Providing 24 hour care is expensive but there is evidence that by focusing on the behavioural, clinical and operational waste in the NHS, cost can be reduced to free up funds for 24 hour care in the home (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008). Given that government borrowing currently stands at approximately £175bn it is likely that spending cuts will need to be made in the NHS (The Lancet, 2010).
Savings could be invested in exploring new ways of enabling 24 hour care, for example by using advances in telecare and telehealth (Smith et al, 2005).
