Cargando…

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient: a critical analysis of its rise, demise and legacy in England

Background: The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (‘LCP’) was an integrated care pathway (ICP) recommended by successive governments in England and Wales to improve end-of-life care. It was discontinued in 2014 following mounting criticism and a national review.  Understanding the problem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seymour, Jane, Clark, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29881785
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13940.2
Descripción
Sumario:Background: The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (‘LCP’) was an integrated care pathway (ICP) recommended by successive governments in England and Wales to improve end-of-life care. It was discontinued in 2014 following mounting criticism and a national review.  Understanding the problems encountered in the roll out of the LCP has crucial importance for future policy making in end of life care. We provide an in-depth account of LCP development and implementation with explanatory theoretical perspectives. We address three critical questions: 1) why and how did the LCP come to prominence as a vehicle of policy and practice? 2) what factors contributed to its demise? 3) what immediate implications and lessons resulted from its withdrawal? Methods: We use primary and secondary sources in the public domain to assemble a critical and historical review. We also draw on the ‘boundary object’ concept and on wider analyses of the use of ICPs. Results: The rapidity of transfer and translation of the LCP reflected uncritical enthusiasm for ICPs in the early 2000s. While the LCP had some weaknesses in its formulation and implementation, it became the bearer of responsibility for all aspects of NHS end-of-life care. It exposed fault lines in the NHS, provided a platform for debates about the ‘evidence’ required to underpin innovations in palliative care and became a conduit of discord about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ practice in care of the dying. It also fostered a previously unseen critique of assumptions within palliative care. Conclusions: In contrast to most observers of the LCP story who refer to the dangers of scaling up clinical interventions without an evidence base, we call for greater assessment of the wider risks and more careful consideration of the unintended consequences that might result from the roll out of new end-of-life interventions.