King's College London

Research portal

'It doesn't do the care for you': a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

'It doesn't do the care for you' : a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care. / Sleeman, Katherine E; Koffman, Jonathan; Bristowe, Katherine; Rumble, Caroline; Burman, Rachel; Leonard, Sara; Noble, Jo; Dampier, Odette; Bernal, William; Morgan, Myfanwy; Hopkins, Philip; Prentice, Wendy; Higginson, Irene J.

In: BMJ open, Vol. 5, No. 9, e008242, 14.09.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Sleeman, KE, Koffman, J, Bristowe, K, Rumble, C, Burman, R, Leonard, S, Noble, J, Dampier, O, Bernal, W, Morgan, M, Hopkins, P, Prentice, W & Higginson, IJ 2015, ''It doesn't do the care for you': a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care', BMJ open, vol. 5, no. 9, e008242. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008242

APA

Sleeman, K. E., Koffman, J., Bristowe, K., Rumble, C., Burman, R., Leonard, S., Noble, J., Dampier, O., Bernal, W., Morgan, M., Hopkins, P., Prentice, W., & Higginson, I. J. (2015). 'It doesn't do the care for you': a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care. BMJ open, 5(9), [e008242]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008242

Vancouver

Sleeman KE, Koffman J, Bristowe K, Rumble C, Burman R, Leonard S et al. 'It doesn't do the care for you': a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care. BMJ open. 2015 Sep 14;5(9). e008242. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008242

Author

Sleeman, Katherine E ; Koffman, Jonathan ; Bristowe, Katherine ; Rumble, Caroline ; Burman, Rachel ; Leonard, Sara ; Noble, Jo ; Dampier, Odette ; Bernal, William ; Morgan, Myfanwy ; Hopkins, Philip ; Prentice, Wendy ; Higginson, Irene J. / 'It doesn't do the care for you' : a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care. In: BMJ open. 2015 ; Vol. 5, No. 9.

Bibtex Download

@article{d33b6305a00f4cb3bb9709c5d2182fb0,
title = "'It doesn't do the care for you': a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care",
abstract = " Objectives  To understand healthcare professionals{\textquoteright} perceptions of the benefits and potential harms of integrated care pathways for end-of-life care, to inform the development of future interventions that aim to improve care of the dying. Design Qualitative interview study with maximum variation sampling and thematic analysis. Participants 25 healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, interviewed in 2009. Setting A 950-bed South London teaching hospital. Results 4 main themes emerged, each including 2 subthemes. Participants were divided between (1) those who described mainly the benefits of integrated care pathways, and (2) those who talked about potential harms. Benefits focused on processes of care, for example, clearer, consistent and comprehensive actions. The recipients of these benefits were staff members themselves, particularly juniors. For others, this perceived clarity was interpreted as of potential harm to patients, where over-reliance on paperwork lead to prescriptive, less thoughtful care, and an absolution from decision-making. Independent of their effects on patient care, integrated care pathways for dying had (3) a symbolic value: they legitimised death as a potential outcome and were used as a signal that the focus of care had changed. However, (4) a weak infrastructure, including scanty education and training in end-of-life care and a poor evidence base, that appeared to undermine the foundations on which the Liverpool Care Pathway was built. Conclusions  The potential harms of integrated care pathways for the dying identified in this study were reminiscent of criticisms subsequently published by the Neuberger review. These data highlight: (1) the importance of collecting, reporting and using qualitative data when developing and evaluating complex interventions; (2) that comprehensive education and training in palliative care is critical for the success of any new intervention; (3) the need for future interventions to be grounded in patient-centred outcomes, not just processes of care.                                  ",
author = "Sleeman, {Katherine E} and Jonathan Koffman and Katherine Bristowe and Caroline Rumble and Rachel Burman and Sara Leonard and Jo Noble and Odette Dampier and William Bernal and Myfanwy Morgan and Philip Hopkins and Wendy Prentice and Higginson, {Irene J}",
note = "Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.",
year = "2015",
month = sep,
day = "14",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008242",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'It doesn't do the care for you'

T2 - a qualitative study of health care professionals' perceptions of the benefits and harms of integrated care pathways for end of life care

AU - Sleeman, Katherine E

AU - Koffman, Jonathan

AU - Bristowe, Katherine

AU - Rumble, Caroline

AU - Burman, Rachel

AU - Leonard, Sara

AU - Noble, Jo

AU - Dampier, Odette

AU - Bernal, William

AU - Morgan, Myfanwy

AU - Hopkins, Philip

AU - Prentice, Wendy

AU - Higginson, Irene J

N1 - Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

PY - 2015/9/14

Y1 - 2015/9/14

N2 - Objectives  To understand healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and potential harms of integrated care pathways for end-of-life care, to inform the development of future interventions that aim to improve care of the dying. Design Qualitative interview study with maximum variation sampling and thematic analysis. Participants 25 healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, interviewed in 2009. Setting A 950-bed South London teaching hospital. Results 4 main themes emerged, each including 2 subthemes. Participants were divided between (1) those who described mainly the benefits of integrated care pathways, and (2) those who talked about potential harms. Benefits focused on processes of care, for example, clearer, consistent and comprehensive actions. The recipients of these benefits were staff members themselves, particularly juniors. For others, this perceived clarity was interpreted as of potential harm to patients, where over-reliance on paperwork lead to prescriptive, less thoughtful care, and an absolution from decision-making. Independent of their effects on patient care, integrated care pathways for dying had (3) a symbolic value: they legitimised death as a potential outcome and were used as a signal that the focus of care had changed. However, (4) a weak infrastructure, including scanty education and training in end-of-life care and a poor evidence base, that appeared to undermine the foundations on which the Liverpool Care Pathway was built. Conclusions  The potential harms of integrated care pathways for the dying identified in this study were reminiscent of criticisms subsequently published by the Neuberger review. These data highlight: (1) the importance of collecting, reporting and using qualitative data when developing and evaluating complex interventions; (2) that comprehensive education and training in palliative care is critical for the success of any new intervention; (3) the need for future interventions to be grounded in patient-centred outcomes, not just processes of care.                                  

AB - Objectives  To understand healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and potential harms of integrated care pathways for end-of-life care, to inform the development of future interventions that aim to improve care of the dying. Design Qualitative interview study with maximum variation sampling and thematic analysis. Participants 25 healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, interviewed in 2009. Setting A 950-bed South London teaching hospital. Results 4 main themes emerged, each including 2 subthemes. Participants were divided between (1) those who described mainly the benefits of integrated care pathways, and (2) those who talked about potential harms. Benefits focused on processes of care, for example, clearer, consistent and comprehensive actions. The recipients of these benefits were staff members themselves, particularly juniors. For others, this perceived clarity was interpreted as of potential harm to patients, where over-reliance on paperwork lead to prescriptive, less thoughtful care, and an absolution from decision-making. Independent of their effects on patient care, integrated care pathways for dying had (3) a symbolic value: they legitimised death as a potential outcome and were used as a signal that the focus of care had changed. However, (4) a weak infrastructure, including scanty education and training in end-of-life care and a poor evidence base, that appeared to undermine the foundations on which the Liverpool Care Pathway was built. Conclusions  The potential harms of integrated care pathways for the dying identified in this study were reminiscent of criticisms subsequently published by the Neuberger review. These data highlight: (1) the importance of collecting, reporting and using qualitative data when developing and evaluating complex interventions; (2) that comprehensive education and training in palliative care is critical for the success of any new intervention; (3) the need for future interventions to be grounded in patient-centred outcomes, not just processes of care.                                  

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008242

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008242

M3 - Article

C2 - 26369795

VL - 5

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 9

M1 - e008242

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454