BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Care of the Dying clinical coordinated Pathway (CDP) was adapted from the United Kingdom Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) and implemented in a tertiary hospital in Singapore to improve care in oncology and subsequently renal patients. With concerns about its use after the Neuberger review, an audit of patients on the CDP was performed to determine if the use of such a pathway should be continued locally. METHODS: A two-year retrospective audit of CDP use was conducted. Aspects of communication, initiation of CDP, patient monitoring, medications, nutrition, and hydration were assessed. RESULTS: In the 111 patient records reviewed, there were documented extent of care discussions with 94% of caregivers and 29% of patients before CDP initiation. Of the 88% of CDPs initiated within office hours, 90% fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients were monitored at least every eight hours. Seventy-three patients (66%) were prescribed opioids or sedatives and subsequently monitored appropriately, albeit 56% had no documented prior discussion with caregivers regarding medication use. Indications for opioid use were documented for all patients and only one patient had documentation of excessive sedation. Oral feeding and parenteral hydration were continued in 85% and 74% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was no documented compromise in medication safety, clinical monitoring, and provision of nutrition and hydration for patients on the CDP. However, documentation of important end-of-life decisions and conversations remain poor. Development of an alternative care tool encouraging systematic discussion and documentation of individualized end-of-life care plans should be considered.
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Care of the Dying clinical coordinated Pathway (CDP) was adapted from the United Kingdom Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) and implemented in a tertiary hospital in Singapore to improve care in oncology and subsequently renal patients. With concerns about its use after the Neuberger review, an audit of patients on the CDP was performed to determine if the use of such a pathway should be continued locally. METHODS: A two-year retrospective audit of CDP use was conducted. Aspects of communication, initiation of CDP, patient monitoring, medications, nutrition, and hydration were assessed. RESULTS: In the 111 patient records reviewed, there were documented extent of care discussions with 94% of caregivers and 29% of patients before CDP initiation. Of the 88% of CDPs initiated within office hours, 90% fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients were monitored at least every eight hours. Seventy-three patients (66%) were prescribed opioids or sedatives and subsequently monitored appropriately, albeit 56% had no documented prior discussion with caregivers regarding medication use. Indications for opioid use were documented for all patients and only one patient had documentation of excessive sedation. Oral feeding and parenteral hydration were continued in 85% and 74% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was no documented compromise in medication safety, clinical monitoring, and provision of nutrition and hydration for patients on the CDP. However, documentation of important end-of-life decisions and conversations remain poor. Development of an alternative care tool encouraging systematic discussion and documentation of individualized end-of-life care plans should be considered.