BACKGROUND: The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is extensively used in hospices, but the literature on the process of implementation is scarce. AIM: Developing, piloting, and preliminarily assessing the LCP program within the inpatient hospice setting. METHODS: This is a phase 0-1 study, according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework, divided into three phases: literature review on LCP in hospice and development of the Italian version of the LCP program (LCP-I), development of a procedure for assessing the quality of the implementation process and assessing the feasibility of the implementation process, and piloting the procedure in 7 inpatient Italian hospices. RESULTS: The LCP was implemented in all the hospices involved. A high proportion of physicians (50%-100%) and nurses (94%-100%) attended the self-education program. The self-implementation of the LCP-I program was completed in all hospices. The proportion of patients who died on LCP-I ranged between 35.6% and 89.1%. Professionals from 2 hospices reported a positive impact of the LCP-I. Conversely, professionals from 2 hospices did not recognize a positive impact of the program and did not agree to maintain the LCP-I in hospice. Finally, professionals from the other 3 hospices reported intermediate evaluations (1 stopped to use the LCP-I). Some weaknesses emerged from the external audits, related to the self-education and the self-implementation approach. Professionals required an external support from a trained palliative care team with reference to both phases. CONCLUSIONS: The LCP-I implementation within hospices is feasible, and the process of implementation is evaluable. Issues that occurred within the implementation process suggest the introduction of an external support from a trained palliative care team in implementing the LCP program.
BACKGROUND: The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is extensively used in hospices, but the literature on the process of implementation is scarce. AIM: Developing, piloting, and preliminarily assessing the LCP program within the inpatient hospice setting. METHODS: This is a phase 0-1 study, according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework, divided into three phases: literature review on LCP in hospice and development of the Italian version of the LCP program (LCP-I), development of a procedure for assessing the quality of the implementation process and assessing the feasibility of the implementation process, and piloting the procedure in 7 inpatient Italian hospices. RESULTS: The LCP was implemented in all the hospices involved. A high proportion of physicians (50%-100%) and nurses (94%-100%) attended the self-education program. The self-implementation of the LCP-I program was completed in all hospices. The proportion of patients who died on LCP-I ranged between 35.6% and 89.1%. Professionals from 2 hospices reported a positive impact of the LCP-I. Conversely, professionals from 2 hospices did not recognize a positive impact of the program and did not agree to maintain the LCP-I in hospice. Finally, professionals from the other 3 hospices reported intermediate evaluations (1 stopped to use the LCP-I). Some weaknesses emerged from the external audits, related to the self-education and the self-implementation approach. Professionals required an external support from a trained palliative care team with reference to both phases. CONCLUSIONS: The LCP-I implementation within hospices is feasible, and the process of implementation is evaluable. Issues that occurred within the implementation process suggest the introduction of an external support from a trained palliative care team in implementing the LCP program.
Entities:
Keywords:
End-of-life care; Liverpool Care Pathway; complex interventions; dying; hospice; implementation process
Authors: Rebecca Verhofstede; Tinne Smets; Joachim Cohen; Massimo Costantini; Nele Van Den Noortgate; Agnes van der Heide; Luc Deliens Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 3.234