Electronic palliative care coordinating systems (EPaCCS) may not facilitate home deaths: A mixed methods evaluation of end of life care in two English counties

Author:

Wye Lesley1,Lasseter Gemma2,Simmonds Bethany2,Duncan Lorna3,Percival John2,Purdy Sarah4

Affiliation:

1. Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, UK

2. Research Associate, Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, UK

3. Research Assistant, Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, UK

4. Associate Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK

Abstract

Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) detail preferred place of death across health and voluntary sector boundaries. Quantitative studies suggest that individuals recorded on EPaCCS are more likely to die at home. This study aimed to explore this relationship between EPaCCS and home deaths. Patient records from EPaCCS were collected from 1 September 2011 to 29 February 2012, linked to death data and analysed using descriptive statistics. We interviewed 101 professionals, including community nurses, and employed framework analysis. Few eligible patients were entered on EPaCCS (9% North Somerset, 13% Somerset). Of those, the majority died in community settings (87%, 81/93 North Somerset; 93% 307/331 Somerset). However, interviews and EPaCCS record analysis suggested that EPaCCS was almost exclusively used by community nurses and GPs, so, unsurprisingly, the relationship between EPaCCS and home deaths was strong. Difficulties included professional reluctance to discuss death, and the burden of data entry falling on daytime staff for out-of-hours colleagues. These results challenge assumptions that EPaCCS facilitates increased home deaths, as qualitative investigation identified selection bias. To avoid misinterpretations, future studies should employ mixed methods. The implementation of an electronic tool is not enough on its own to ensure that advanced care wishes are available, as long-standing organisational and cultural issues, such as professionals working in silos and professional reluctance to have ‘end of life’ discussions, also need to be addressed.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Research and Theory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3