News2 mins ago
Better Care For The Dying
The controversial Liverpool Care Pathway is to be axed in favour of individual treatment plans. Good idea? I think so.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://
ok ok so it's another newspaper report. but it was produced as a result of a "freedom of information" request, and quantifies the amount received by various NHS trusts.
ok ok so it's another newspaper report. but it was produced as a result of a "freedom of information" request, and quantifies the amount received by various NHS trusts.
thank you. So from that report, its a pretty stupid unintended outcome rather than a deliberate attempt to kill people off. Actually its a good example of the belief in a hidden message that I described earlier.
Nowhere in the actual LCP does it mandate, suggest, approve of, indicate, condone, withholding of food and drink from someone who is dying. It is quite clear also in the documentation that the patient where possible, and the relatives or significant others, should have every aspect of the care that the patient will receive discussed and explained and where its possible, agreed with. If approached properly it usually is, however some relis cannot accept that their loved one is dying and that heroic interventions not only won't help but will be distressing, painful and or abusive to the patient.
There are always idiots who will interpret a financial incentive to adopt best practice for a certain group of people as a "nudge nudge wink wink" message to get as many people onto the best practice pathway regardless and where the person involved is a decision maker, either in medicine or management then the potential for horrendous consequences is obvious one would have thought.
As I said, that still doesn't make the actual LCP anything but a collation of what is best practice in care of the dying and as I said, my concern is that if the focus is on the documentation and not on the idiots, nothing will change...of course focussing on the documentation is much easier.....
Nowhere in the actual LCP does it mandate, suggest, approve of, indicate, condone, withholding of food and drink from someone who is dying. It is quite clear also in the documentation that the patient where possible, and the relatives or significant others, should have every aspect of the care that the patient will receive discussed and explained and where its possible, agreed with. If approached properly it usually is, however some relis cannot accept that their loved one is dying and that heroic interventions not only won't help but will be distressing, painful and or abusive to the patient.
There are always idiots who will interpret a financial incentive to adopt best practice for a certain group of people as a "nudge nudge wink wink" message to get as many people onto the best practice pathway regardless and where the person involved is a decision maker, either in medicine or management then the potential for horrendous consequences is obvious one would have thought.
As I said, that still doesn't make the actual LCP anything but a collation of what is best practice in care of the dying and as I said, my concern is that if the focus is on the documentation and not on the idiots, nothing will change...of course focussing on the documentation is much easier.....
i agree. At work we had a "close call" system, the intent was to find out where there were safety issues and to encourage workers to report them. The encouragement was a financial incentive - the result was that so many non-events or downright stupid scenarios were reported that the syatem became totally discredited and had to be withdrawn. REsult, the company has lost a valuable resource, because management failed to grasp how the introduction of money would twist the scheme.
Woofgang, // I would still like to see actual factual information (not newspaper reports) of financial incentive to put patients on LCP. //
This from the BBC.
http://
This from the Department of Health, mentioning ‘the use of financial incentives’.
https:/
And this from the NHS which confirms that financial incentives exist.
//While these financial incentives do exist, they are designed to support the implementation of better care.//
Sadly, in many cases, 'better care' doesn’t appear to have been the priority.
This from the BBC.
http://
This from the Department of Health, mentioning ‘the use of financial incentives’.
https:/
And this from the NHS which confirms that financial incentives exist.
//While these financial incentives do exist, they are designed to support the implementation of better care.//
Sadly, in many cases, 'better care' doesn’t appear to have been the priority.
now I may be being naïve here, but is it not ironic that we have to provide guidelines to care for the dying ? its basic nursing care,,,, inform relatives every step of the way re the patients condition, provide a quiet area for both patient and relatives, refreshments available to visitors 27/7 if the patient is unable to drink ( which most would be ) I/v fluids, sips of water, rigorous oral care. but above all ensure the patient is comfortable and painfree, why speed up a natural process, if its to safe money ! and free beds. please god let me die at home :(
//Sadly, in many cases, 'better care' doesn’t appear to have been the priority. //
no. the priority in many cases is fiscally driven. at stafford the piority was acquisition of "foundation" status (which they got in 2008), which brought huge financial benefits, both to the trust and personally to some of its officers.
it's very sad that Julie Bailey, who became something of a focus for the campaign in Stafford, has now effectively been run out of town because "her campaign" led directly to the closure of A&E in stafford.
no. the priority in many cases is fiscally driven. at stafford the piority was acquisition of "foundation" status (which they got in 2008), which brought huge financial benefits, both to the trust and personally to some of its officers.
it's very sad that Julie Bailey, who became something of a focus for the campaign in Stafford, has now effectively been run out of town because "her campaign" led directly to the closure of A&E in stafford.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Crosswords23 mins ago
Crosswords23 mins ago
