Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying

  1. Raymond J Chan1,*,
  2. Joan Webster2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group

Published Online: 18 NOV 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 18 JUN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008006.pub3


How to Cite

Chan RJ, Webster J. End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD008006. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008006.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Cancer Care Services, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

  2. 2

    Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Centre for Clinical Nursing, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

*Raymond J Chan, Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Level 2, Building 34,, Butterfield Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia. raychan.rbwh@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 18 NOV 2013

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 1, 2010 of The Cochrane Library (Chan 2010).

 

Description of the condition

It is well recognised that populations in developed countries are ageing (United Nations 2002). As populations age, the pattern of diseases from which people die also changes (WHO 2004). With advanced ageing, there is an increased risk of death from chronic diseases such as cancer and heart failure. For example, cancer was estimated to account for 7.6 million deaths (12% of all deaths) worldwide in 2008 (WHO and Cancer Research UK 2012). Therefore, palliative care has been identified as one of the worldwide public health priorities due to the ageing population (WHO 2004). While palliative care is concerned with "the quality of life of patients and families who face life-threatening illness, by providing pain and symptom relief, spiritual and psychosocial support from diagnosis to the end of life and bereavement" (WHO 2009), end-of-life care focuses on the last days and hours of life (Lunney 2003). The need to provide high-quality end-of-life care is essential. The needs of dying people may include, but are not limited to, knowing when death is coming, understanding what can be expected, being able to maintain a sense of control and having their wishes given preference, having access to information and excellent care, and having access to spiritual and emotional support as required (Steinhauser 2000; Steinhauser 2001). Quality end-of-life care may vary from person to person and may be difficult to define and measure accurately. However, such care should at least include the following domains: quality of life, physical symptoms, emotional and cognitive symptoms, advanced care planning, functional status, spirituality, grief and bereavement; satisfaction and quality of care, as well as carer's well-being (Mularski 2007).

Obstacles to quality end-of-life care have also been identified and may include failure to recognise treatment futility, lack of communication among decision makers, no agreement on a course of end-of-life care and failure to implement a timely end-of-life plan of care (Travis 2002). In recent years, there has been a variety of initiatives developed worldwide to target such issues by developing systemic approaches towards end-of-life care. These initiatives include programmes such as the National End of Life Care Programme (Department of Health 2008), Gold Standards Framework in Care Homes (Badger 2007), and the Liverpool Care Pathway (Ellershaw 1997; Ellershaw 2003a).

 

Description of the intervention

Integrated care pathways are documents that outline the essential steps of multidisciplinary care in addressing a specific clinical problem. They can be used to introduce clinical guidelines and systematic audits of clinical practice (Hockley 2005). The Liverpool Care Pathway is an example of an integrated care pathway specifically for the dying phase of palliation.

Historically, dying patients receiving general hospital care tended to lack adequate attention from senior medical staff and nursing staff (Mills 1994). The quality of symptom control and basic nursing care were considered to be inadequate (Mills 1994). It was thought that much could be learned from the way patients were cared for in the hospice movement (Mills 1994). The Liverpool Care Pathway was an example of strategies developed by the Royal Liverpool University Trust UK) and the Marie Curie Centre Liverpool (UK) (Ellershaw 1997; Ellershaw 2003a) based on the care received by people in the hospice setting. Other objectives of the pathway were to promote cost-effective health care by appropriate prescribing, and avoiding crisis interventions and inappropriate hospital admissions. The document is patient-centred and focuses on the holistic needs of people who are dying. It incorporates the physical, psychological, social, spiritual and religious aspects of care (Ellershaw 2007). The Liverpool Care Pathway defines 19 goals considered essential in the management of dying patients and for the care of their relatives/carers after death (Ellershaw 1997; Ellershaw 2003a). These goals were established with the issues identified from surveys, focus groups, expert opinion and consensus best practice.

Later, several other groups developed care pathways for dying people based on the concept of Ellershaw and colleagues (Bookbinder 2005; Fowell 2002; Pooler 2003). While the professional conjecture is that end-of-life care pathways promote best possible patient outcomes (Ellershaw 2007), speculation has suggested possible adverse effects. These controversies included premature use of the pathway leading to death due to the premature diagnosis of imminent death, the care pathway masking the signs in improvement in patients and causing carers' dissatisfaction (Delvin 2009; Smith 2009). There have been substantial concerns raised by the public and by health professionals that have been documented in the UK Government-commissioned, independent review of the Liverpool Care Pathway led by Baroness Julia Neuberger (Neuberger 2013). The panel reviewed multiple sources including: written submissions from the public and health professionals with experience of the Liverpool Care Pathway, the academic literature and hospital complaints. The panel concluded that the Liverpool Care Pathway, used generically for all patients in the last hours or days of life, was the wrong approach (Neuberger 2013). The report also highlighted the complexity around the use of the pathway, specifically highlighting a number of ethical, safety, clinical practice and negligence issues and how inadequately dying is diagnosed in clinical care (Neuberger 2013). As a result of the review in July 2013, the UK government made a decision to phase out the pathway nationally over the next six to 12 months after the release date of the Neuberger 2013 review.

It is particularly important to recognise that an end-of-life care pathway is a complex intervention (McConnell 2013; Medical Research Council 2000). Although there are methodological considerations and challenges, it is still important to conduct as rigorous evaluation as possible to determine the effects (benefits or harms) of the end-of-life care pathways (Currow 2011; Medical Research Council 2000). Therefore, a systematic review is warranted to substantiate claims as to whether the end-of-life care pathways are beneficial or harmful for dying patients and their carers.

 

How the intervention might work

In many clinical areas, integrated care pathways are utilised as structured multidisciplinary care plans that detail essential steps in caring for patients with specific clinical problems (Campbell 1998). Care pathways for the dying have been developed as a model to improve the end-of-life care of all patients. They ensure that the most appropriate management occurs at the most appropriate time and that it is provided by the most appropriate health professional.

 

Why it is important to do this review

Two systematic reviews reported that clinical pathways enhance efficiency of care without adverse effects on outcomes among patients who undergo gastrointestinal surgery (Lemmens 2008) and show a significant length of stay reduction in patients who undergo invasive procedures (Rotter 2008). Both of these systematic reviews included evidence involving designs such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of controlled studies.

In contrast, one Cochrane systematic review reported that there was no significant benefit in functional outcome and patient satisfaction, and that quality of life might actually be made worse for patients following stroke care pathways (Kawn 2004). Therefore, clinical pathways seem to be beneficial for managing certain clinical problems, but not all.

Clinical pathways for end-of-life care management are used widely around the world and have been set as a part of the end-of-life care policies or strategies in some countries (Department of Health 2008; Department of Health and Ageing 2011; Ministry of Health NZ 2013; National Health Service 2005) There is a significant need for clinicians to be informed about the utilisation of end-of-life care pathways with a systematic review.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

To assess the effects of end-of-life care pathways, compared with usual care (no pathway) or with care guided by another end-of-life care pathway across all healthcare settings (e.g. hospitals, residential aged care facilities, community).

In particular, we aimed to assess the effects on symptom severity and quality of life of people who are dying; those related to the care such as families, carers and health professionals; or a combination of these.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We aimed to include clinical trials in which the effect of the end-of-life care pathway could be compared with a control group that received usual care or with trials comparing one end-of-life care pathway with another end-of-life care pathway. We planned to include RCTs, cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs.

If limited RCTs and quasi-RCTs were available, we planned to consider including controlled before-and-after studies. The review authors adopted the criteria for inclusion of controlled before-and-after studies from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group guidelines (EPOC 2002). These criteria include (1) contemporaneous data collection, (2) appropriate choice of control site and (3) a minimum of two intervention sites and two control sites. We did not plan to include any non-controlled studies (EPOC 2002). The analysis for randomised and non-randomised studies were to have been undertaken separately because non-randomised comparisons may overestimate treatment effects (Chalmers 1983; Sacks 1982), and the size and direction of the bias can be unpredictable (Deeks 2003).

 

Types of participants

We included patients and families who had received care guided by an end-of-life care pathway. We included participants with different diseases such as cancer or organ failure. However, participants who received interventions must have been receiving care guided by an end-of-life care pathway for their last days and hours of life. We applied no restrictions on age of the patient, diagnosis or setting (hospital, home, nursing home).

 

Types of interventions

The planned comparisons were:

  • intervention (receiving care guided by an end-of-life care pathway) versus usual care;
  • intervention A (pathway A) versus intervention B (pathway B).

An end-of-life care pathway may have been part of a larger intervention; we only included these studies if the effect of the pathway could be isolated.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

  • Physical symptom severity (measured by any instrument used by the study author such as Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (Bruera 1991)), Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (Portenoy 1994).
  • Psychological symptom severity (measured by any instrument used by the study author. For example, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond 1983)).
  • Quality of life (measured by any instrument used by the study author such as McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (Cohen 1995)).
  • Harms (any adverse effects as determined by the researchers, health professionals or carers/families).

 

Secondary outcomes

  • Advanced care planning (as measured by whether advanced care planning had happened or not).
  • Communication between healthcare teams and families (as measured by the occurrence of any family meetings).
  • Carer's well-being.
  • Grief and bereavement.
  • Patient/staff/carer's satisfaction.
  • Staff confidence.
  • Cost of intervention.
  • Cost of care.
  • Medication/treatment use.
  • Spiritual needs.

We planned to include any tools used by the study authors of the included studies. We would have discussed the validity and reliability of the tools used in the appraisal of studies.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

The search was run for the original review in September 2009 and the subsequent search was run in June 2013.

 

Electronic searches

We searched:

  • the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to Issue 6, 2013;
  • MEDLINE (1950 to 18 June 2013);
  • EMBASE (1980 to 18 June 2013);
  • PsycINFO (1980 to 18 June 2013);
  • CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2013).

We developed the search strategy to comprise searches for both keywords and medical subject headings under existing database organisational schemes. The strategies for each database are presented in Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3, Appendix 4 and Appendix 5. We applied no restrictions by language. We translated foreign language abstracts for the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and, where necessary, we planned to translate the methods, results and discussion sections for inclusion in the review.

 

Searching other resources

We searched the reference lists of any relevant reviews or other studies, scanning paper issues of journals relevant to interventions of end-of-life care pathway and scanning abstracts from relevant conference proceedings. We also contacted experts in the field and would have contacted authors of included studies for advice as to other relevant studies. We also used Google to search the World Wide Web, Caresearch (www.caresearch.com.au), the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database for grey literature and conference abstracts. We searched databases in TrialsCentral (www.trialscentral.org), the World Health Organization's (WHO) Clinical Trial Search Portal (www.who.int/trealsearch), and Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) to identify ongoing or recently completed studies. We planned, if applicable, to present relevant ongoing studies in a table in the review.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two review authors pre-screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion, and those selected by either or both review authors were subject to full-text assessment. Two review authors independently assessed the selected articles for inclusion. We had planned to resolve any discrepancies by consensus, overseen by a third review author acting as arbiter, with approval by one review author and the arbiter being sufficient. We had also planned to list those studies excluded after full-text assessment in the table Characteristics of excluded studies, giving reasons for exclusion.

 

Data extraction and management

We developed a data extraction form based on the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group's template. We planned to extract the following main sets of data from each included study:

  • lead author;
  • date;
  • study participant inclusion criteria;
  • participants (participant diagnoses/condition(s) and demographics: race/ethnicity, gender, religion/culture, socioeconomic status, age);
  • study design and timetable, randomisation, allocation concealment;
  • interventions (end-of-life care pathway type);
  • intervention setting (hospital, home, residential aged care facilities);
  • numbers of participants in each trial arm, withdrawals and drop-outs;
  • outcome measures; time(s) at which outcomes were assessed.

At least two review authors were to have independently extracted data on to the data extraction form. Any discrepancies would have been referred to a third review author and any errors or inconsistencies resolved. The first review author was to have entered the data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 2012), with another review author checking accuracy of the data entered.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We intended to assess and report on the risk of bias of included studies in accordance with the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011), which recommends the explicit reporting of the following individual domains:

The criteria for RCTs were:

  • sequence generation;
  • allocation concealment;
  • blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors (assessed for each main outcome or class of outcome);
  • incomplete outcome data (assessed for each main outcome or class of outcome);
  • selective outcome reporting;
  • other sources of bias.

The criteria for controlled before-and-after studies were:

  • baseline measurement of outcomes;
  • baseline characteristics of studies using second site as control;
  • protection against exclusion or selection bias;
  • protection against contamination;
  • reliable primary outcomes measures;
  • appropriate analysis of data.

We would have examined and reported the following:

  • validation and reliability of outcome measures;
  • whether the study obtained ethics committee approval and ensured informed consent for participation;
  • use of standardised protocols for information delivery. We were to have checked for consistency of the delivery of interventions where possible.

Two review authors would have independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion and consensus, and with a third review author acting as arbiter. We planned to present our assessment in 'Risk of bias' tables for each included study. We would have contacted study authors for additional information about the study methods as necessary. We would have incorporated the results of the risk of bias assessment into the review through narrative description and commentary about each of the items mentioned.

 

Measures of treatment effect

For individual studies, effect measures for categorical outcomes were to include risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For statistically significant effects, we would have calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB). If possible, for continuous outcomes, the effect measure was to have been mean difference (MD) or, if the scale of measurement differed across trials, standardised mean difference (SMD), each with its 95% CI. For meta-analyses (see below), for categorical outcomes, we would have calculated typical estimates of RR with their 95% CI; and for continuous outcomes, we would have calculated the mean difference (MD) or a summary estimate for SMD, each with its 95% CI.

We would have analysed data using The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5 software (RevMan 2012).

 

Unit of analysis issues

We would have checked unit of analysis issues if we had found cluster randomised trials. We did not expect to find cross-over trials for this type of intervention due to the end-of-life pathway nature. If cluster randomised trials had been identified, we would have reported the intracluster correlation coefficient and adjusted for clustering if possible. Alternatively, we would have presented the cluster randomised studies as point estimates of the intervention effect without any statistical analysis or CIs.

 

Dealing with missing data

If some outcome data remained missing despite our attempts to obtain complete outcome data from authors, we would have performed an available-case analysis, based on the numbers of participants for whom outcome data were known. If standard deviations (SD) were missing, we would have imputed them from other studies, or where possible, computed them from standard errors (SE) using the formula SD = SE x √¯N, where these were available (Higgins 2011). We also planned to report on levels of drop-outs in the intervention and comparison groups as an indicator of 'acceptability' of the intervention, and the likelihood of bias.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We would have tested heterogeneity using the Chi2 statistics and any heterogeneity was to have been further quantified with the I2 statistic (which describes the percentage of the variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error). We would have considered a value greater than 50% as representing substantial heterogeneity (Higgins 2011).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We would have assessed reporting bias using guidelines in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We did not expect to find a large number of studies, so we thought it was unlikely that publication or inclusion bias would be assessed. However, we planned to do a funnel plot if enough studies were available to do a meaningful assessment of publication bias.

 

Data synthesis

If studies had been sufficiently similar in terms of population, inclusion criteria, interventions, outcomes (including the time(s) at which these are assessed), or a combination of these, we would have considered pooling the data statistically using meta-analysis. We would have reported the results of the individual trials separately where the outcome data were unsuitable for meta-analysis. We planned to use fixed-effect models when population measures were similar and random-effects models where population parameters varied from study to study.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We would have conducted subgroup analyses if sufficient data could support the analyses. Subgroups may have included disease types and settings where care was received.

 

Sensitivity analysis

If there were other sources of heterogeneity, we planned to explore further by using sensitivity analysis to determine the effects of the end-of-life care pathways, overall methodological quality and use of intention-to-treat analysis. We would have removed studies with high attrition rates (over 50%) from the meta-analysis to determine whether the results would be significantly different without them.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Description of studies

See: 'Characteristics of included studies'; 'Characteristics of excluded studies'; 'Characteristics of ongoing studies'.

 

Results of the search

We found and assessed 2042 titles and abstracts in electronic format (including the 920 retrieved for the original review).

 

Included studies

We found no studies fulfilling the study eligibility criteria.

 

Excluded studies

We excluded 28 studies in the original review and 32 in the update because the study designs did not meet the criteria for included studies. We excluded three controlled before-and-after studies because they did not meet the minimum criteria to be included in this review. These criteria include (1) contemporaneous data collection, (2) appropriate choice of control site and (3) a minimum of two intervention sites and two control sites (EPOC 2002).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

We found no included studies, so could not evaluate bias.

 

Effects of interventions

We found no included studies.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

In this update, we identified no new RCTs, quasi-experimental studies or controlled before-and-after studies meeting our eligibility criteria for this review. Although the UK government has made a decision to phase out the Liverpool Care Pathway (the most commonly used end-of-life care pathway) in the UK, such decisions have not been made in other countries. With a number of safety concerns reported by Neuberger's report and the lack of evidence (Neuberger 2013), it is extremely difficult to determine whether the suggested negative consequences associated with the Liverpool Care Pathway are associated with the actual pathway-based care; poor implementation of pathway-based care; the emotional consequences of illness, death and bereavement; or a combination of these (Parry 2013). There is an urgent need for rigorous research to answer several key questions: do the adverse findings from Neuberger's report apply to countries other than the UK and, if so, to what extent? What are the differences in outcomes between the Liverpool Care Pathway and other end-of-life care pathways? Are the outcomes for dying patients who are placed on an end-of-life care pathway different to those receiving usual care? If the answers to these questions are 'yes': are the right people put on the end-of-life care pathway at the right time in their illness trajectory? In which settings should an end-of-life care pathway be used? How senior should the clinicians be and how much history of this patient should they have before an end-of-life care pathway is initiated?

The results of a number of case series and non-eligible controlled or non-controlled before-and-after studies indicated that end-of-life care pathways may have the potential to improve symptom management (Bailey 2005; Veerbeek 2008); clinical documentation and assessment (Bookbinder 2005; Luhrs 2005; Veerbeek 2008); knowledge of end-of-life care among internal medicine students (Okon 2004); prescription of medications for end-of-life (Bailey 2005; Mirando 2005); bereavement levels of relatives (Veerbeek 2008a); and outcomes in relation to respect, kindness, dignity, family emotional support, family self efficacy and co-ordination of care (Costantini 2013a). However, the effects of pathways are difficult to ascertain from these designs. Moreover, none of the excluded studies reported the adverse effects of any end-of-life care pathway.

It is well accepted that designing and conducting trials involving the dying is difficult and challenging due to methodological and ethical issues (Fowell 2004; Karlawish 2003). These issues may include difficult patient recruitment due to the patient being too ill to participate or unable to give informed consent, or the heterogeneous nature of palliative populations (Addington-Hall 2007). However, researchers should attempt to investigate end-of-life interventions with the most rigorous research methodology possible. For example, cluster randomised trials across multiple centres may be considered. One feasibility study revealed that cluster randomised trials are possible and may be more effective in recruiting patients in this population than randomised consent (Fowell 2006). Randomised consent requires informed consent after randomisation, but only if the patient is to receive the experimental treatment (Zelen 1990). Moreover, a range of other strategies can also be considered to make clinical trials possible. These include designing a shorter term study, limiting the number of outcomes, undertaking frequent follow-ups, advanced consent and proxy consent where appropriate for studies involving this population (Reyna 2008). Although the challenges in conducting clinical research for the dying are well recognised (Constantini 2011), one Italian research team acknowledges the importance of generating high-quality evidence to inform practice in this area and has completed a phase III cluster RCT to test the effectiveness of the Liverpool Care Pathway (Costantini 2013a). However, at the time of this update being finalised, the final report of the Costantini 2013a trial had not been published.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

Although strong evidence supporting end-of-life care pathways is lacking, the principles underpinning such pathways remain relevant. Plans for end-of-life care should be developed in open consultation with the patient and significant others. All health services using an end-of-life care pathway are encouraged to have their use of the pathway, to date, independently audited, with particular emphasis on the Neuberger's findings (Neuberger 2013). Any subsequent use should be based on carefully documented prospective evaluations.

 
Implications for research

Although high-level evidence is currently unavailable, existing research may be used to inform the development of any future trials. There remains an urgent need for large RCTs or other well-designed controlled studies for the evaluation of the use of end-of-life care pathways in caring for dying people. Such evaluations might be difficult in countries where end-of-life care pathways are embedded in practice or are being withdrawn. However, it remains important to test the effectiveness of end-of-life care pathways where possible. To ensure generalisability, such trials should stratify participants according to different care settings including general acute care setting, emergency department, cancer care units, residential aged care facilities and specialist palliative care units. Additionally, if such studies demonstrate positive effects, it is imperative that there is careful ongoing evaluation of the implementation of any revised pathway as it is made available more broadly. In future studies, outcome measures should include the outcomes of interest in this review in relation to patients, families, carers and health professionals. These may include patients' symptom control, harms, communication between healthcare team and families, carer's well-being, grief and bereavement, staff and carers' satisfaction, staff confidence, cost of intervention, cost of care and medication use. Further, investigations of the effects of such pathways for specific populations are warranted. These specific populations may include, but are not limited to, children and patients with end-stage organ failure or dementia.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. In particular, we would like to thank Phil Wiffen, Professor Christopher Eccleston, Jessica Thomas, Joanne Abbott, Laila Tyrrell, Caroline Struthers and all the referees for their valuable input (peer reviewers for the original review: Bridget Candy and Alain Mayhew; consumer referees: Kathy Smith and Clare Jeffrey).

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

This review has no analyses.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

#1 MeSH descriptor: [Palliative Care] this term only

#2 palliat*

#3 end-of-life

#4 terminally ill

#5 MeSH descriptor: [Terminally Ill] this term only

#6 dying

#7 hospice

#8 MeSH descriptor: [Hospices] explode all trees

#9 end-stage

#10 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9

#11 MeSH descriptor: [Critical Pathways] this term only

#12 ((clinical or critical or care) next path*)

#13 (care next (map* or plan*))

#14 MeSH descriptor: [Guideline] explode all trees

#15 MeSH descriptor: [Health Planning Guidelines] this term only

#16 MeSH descriptor: [Guideline Adherence] this term only

#17 (compliance next (protocol* or policy or guideline*))

#18 (guideline* near/2 (introduc* or issu* or impact or effect* or disseminat* or distribut* or implement*))

#19 "nursing protocol*"

#20 "professional standard*"

#21 (practice guidelin* or practice protocol* or clinical practice guidelin*)

#22 #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21

#23 #10 and #22

 

Appendix 2. MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-progress (Ovid) search strategy

 

Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R)

1 Palliative Care/ or palliat$.mp.

2 end-of-life.mp.

3 terminally ill.mp. or Terminally Ill/

4 dying.mp.

5 hospice.mp. or Hospices/

6 end-stage.mp.

7 or/1-6

8 Critical Pathways/

9 ((clinical or critical or care) adj path$).mp.

10 (care adj (map$ or plan$)).mp.

11 exp Guideline/

12 Health Planning Guidelines/

13 Guideline Adherence/

14 (compliance adj (protocol? or policy or guideline?)).mp.

15 (guideline? adj2 (introduc$ or issu$ or impact or effect? or disseminat$ or distribut$ or implement$)).mp.

16 nursing protocol?.mp.

17 professional standard$.mp.

18 (practice guidelin$ or practice protocol$ or clinical practice guidelin$).mp.

19 or/8-18

20 Guideline.pt.

21 randomized controlled trial.pt.

22 controlled clinical trial.pt.

23 Intervention Studies/

24 experiment$.mp.

25 (time adj series).mp.

26 (pre test or pretest or post test or posttest).mp.

27 Random Allocation/

28 impact.mp.

29 intervention?.mp.

30 Evaluation Studies/

31 Comparative Study.pt.

32 Humans/

33 or/20-31

34 7 and 19 and 32 and 33 (1096)

 

Appendix 3. EMBASE (Ovid) search strategy

1 Palliative Care/ or palliat$.mp.

2 end-of-life.mp.

3 terminally ill.mp. or Terminally Ill/

4 dying.mp.

5 hospice.mp. or Hospices/

6 end-stage.mp.

7 or/1-6

8 Critical Pathways/

9 ((clinical or critical or care) adj path$).mp.

10 (care adj (map$ or plan$)).mp.

11 exp Practice Guideline/

12 Health Planning Guidelines/

13 Guideline Adherence/

14 (compliance adj (protocol? or policy or guideline?)).mp.

15 (guideline? adj2 (introduc$ or issu$ or impact or effect? or disseminat$ or distribut$ or implement$)).mp.

16 nursing protocol?.mp.

17 professional standard$.mp.

18 (practice guidelin$ or practice protocol$ or clinical practice guidelin$).mp.

19 or/8-18

20 randomized controlled trial/

21 controlled clinical trial/

22 Intervention Studies/

23 experiment$.mp.

24 (time adj series).mp.

25 (pre test or pretest or post test or posttest).mp.

26 Random Allocation/

27 impact.mp.

28 intervention?.mp.

29 Evaluation Studies/

30 comparative study/

31 Humans/

32 or/20-30

33 7 and 19 and 32 and 31

 

Appendix 4. PsycINFO (Ovid) search strategy

1 Palliative Care/ or palliat$.mp.

2 end-of-life.mp.

3 terminally ill.mp. or Terminally Ill/

4 dying.mp.

5 hospice.mp. or Hospices/

6 end-stage.mp.

7 or/1-6

8 ((clinical or critical or care) adj path$).mp.

9 (care adj (map$ or plan$)).mp.

10 (compliance adj (protocol? or policy or guideline?)).mp.

11 (guideline? adj2 (introduc$ or issu$ or impact or effect? or disseminat$ or distribut$ or implement$)).mp.

12 nursing protocol?.mp.

13 professional standard$.mp.

14 (practice guidelin$ or practice protocol$ or clinical practice guidelin$).mp.

15 (or/8-9) or (or/10-14)

16 7 and 15

 

Appendix 5. CINAHL (EBSCO) search strategy

S38 S23 AND S36 AND S37 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S37 S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 OR S29 OR S30 OR S31 OR S32 OR S33 OR S34 OR S35 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S36 (MH "Human") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S35 PT comparative study Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S34 (MH "Evaluation Research") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S33 intervention* Search modes - SmartText Searching Interface - EBSCOhost

S32 intervention* Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S31 impact Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S30 (MH "Random Assignment") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S29 (pre test or pretest or post test or posttest) Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S28 "time series" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S27 experiment* Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S26 (MH "Experimental Studies") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S25 PT randomized controlled trial Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S24 PT guideline Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S23 S22 Limiters - Published Date from: 20090801-20130131

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S22 (S10 AND S21) Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S21 S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S20 ("practice guidelin*" or "practice protocol*" or "clinical practice guidelin*") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S19 "professional standard$" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S18 "nursing protocol?" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S17 (guideline? N2 (introduc* or issu* or impact or effect? or disseminat* or distribut* or implement*)) Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S16 (compliance N1 (protocol? or policy or guideline?)) Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S15 (MH "Guideline Adherence") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S14 (MH "Practice Guidelines") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S13 "care map*" or "care plan*" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S12 "clinical path*" or "critical path*" or "care path*" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S11 (MH "Critical Path") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S10 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S9 end-stage Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S8 (MH "Hospices") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S7 hospice Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S6 dying Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S5 (MH "Terminally Ill Patients") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S4 "terminally ill" Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S3 end-of-life Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S2 Palliative Care Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

S1 (MH "Palliative Care") Search modes - Boolean/Phrase Interface - EBSCOhost

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 18 June 2013.


DateEventDescription

27 November 2013AmendedThis review will be updated in 2014. See Published notes.



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 4, 2009
Review first published: Issue 1, 2010


DateEventDescription

23 August 2013New search has been performedA new search was run in June 2013 but no new studies met criteria for inclusion in the review update.

15 August 2013New citation required but conclusions have not changedNew Citation: Conclusion not changed



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

Writing the protocol: RC, JW.
Developing the search strategy: RC and Joanne Abbott, the Trials Search Co-ordinator, Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group.
Searching for trials: RC, JW.
Selecting trials: RC, JW.
Data entry: RC, JW.
Analysis: RC, JW.
Interpreting analysis: RC, JW.
Drafting final review: RC, JW.
Updating the review: RC, JW.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

None known.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
    For funding the salary and facilities for RC to conduct this systematic review
  • Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
    For funding the salary and facilities for JW to conduct this systematic review

 

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

 

Notes

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Notes
  17. Index terms

This updated review has been amended (November 2013) to align the 'Date of search' with the 'Date assessed as up to date'. In light of the recent publication of Costantini 2013, this review will be updated again in 2014 in order to include the results from this trial.

References

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Notes
  18. Characteristics of studies
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Bailey 2005 {published data only}
  • Bailey FA, Burgio KL, Woodby LL, Williams BR, Redden DT, Kovac SH, et al. Improving processes of hospital care during the last hours of life. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005;165(15):1722-7.
Bookbinder 2005 {published data only}
  • Bookbinder M, Blank A, Arney E, Wollner D, Lesage P, McHugh M, et al. Improving end-of-life care: development and pilot-test of a clinical pathway. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2005;29(6):529-43.
Chaplin 2009 {published data only}
  • Chaplin D. Developing an end-of-life care pathway to improve nurses' bereavement care. Nursing Times 2009;105(1):20-1.
Costantini 2013a {published data only}
  • Costantini M, Pellergrini F, Di Leo S, Beccaro M, Rossi C, Glego G, et al. The Liverpool Care Pathway for cancer patients dying in hospital medical wards: a before-after cluster phase II trial of outcomes reported by family members. Palliative Medicine 2013;In press.
Di Leo 2013 {published data only}
  • Di Leo S, Bono L, Romoli V, West E, Ambrosio R, Gallucci M, et al. Implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for the dying patient in the inpatient hospice setting: development and preliminary assessment of the Italian LCP Program. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 2013;In press.
Ellershaw 1997 {published data only}
  • Ellershaw J, Murphy D, Shea T, Foster A, Overill S. Developing an integrated care pathway for the dying patient. European Journal of Palliative Care 1997;4:203-8.
Ellershaw 2001 {published data only}
  • Ellershaw J, Smith C, Overill S, Walker SE, Aldridge J. Care of the dying: setting standards for symptom control in the last 48 hours of life. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2001;21(1):12-7.
Ellershaw 2003 {published data only}
Ellershaw 2007 {published data only}
Fowell 2002 {published data only}
  • Fowell A, Finlay I, Johnstone R, Minto L. An integrated care pathway for the last two days of life: Wales-wide benchmarking in palliative care. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2002;8(12):566-73.
Fowell 2003 {published data only}
  • Fowell A, Finlay I, Johnstone R, Minto L. An integrated care pathway for the last two days of life: a pathway for implementing a pathway. Journal of Integrated Care Pathways 2003;7(3):91-9.
Hardy 2007 {published data only}
Hockley 2005 {published data only}
  • Hockley J, Dewar B, Watson J. Promoting end-of-life care in nursing homes using an 'integrated care pathway for the last days of life'. Journal of Research in Nursing 2005;10(2):135-52.
Horey 2012 {published data only}
  • Horey D, Street A, Sands A. Acceptability and feasibility of end-of-life care pathways in Australian residential aged care facilities. Medical Journal of Australia 2012;197(2):106-9.
Jack 2003 {published data only}
  • Jack BA, Gambles M, Murphy D, Ellershaw JE. Nurses' perceptions of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient in the acute hospital setting. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2003;9(9):375-81.
Johnson 2004 {published data only}
  • Johnson DC, Kassner CT, Kutner JS. Current use of guidelines, protocols, and care pathways for symptom management in hospice. The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative care 2004;21(1):51-7.
Luhrs 2005 {published data only}
  • Luhrs CA, Meghani S, Homel P, Drayton M, O'Toole E, Paccione M, et al. Pilot of a pathway to improve the care of imminently dying oncology inpatients in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2005;29(6):544-51.
Main 2006 {published data only}
  • Main J, Whittle C, Treml J, Woolley J, Main A. The development of an Integrated Care Pathway for all patients with advanced life-limiting illness - the Supportive Care Pathway. Journal of Nursing Management 2006;14(7):521-8.
Matthews 2006 {published data only}
  • Matthews K, Gambles M, Ellershaw JE, Brook L, Williams M, Hodgson A, et al. Developing the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying child. Paediatric Nursing 2006;18(1):18-21.
Mellor 2004 {published data only}
  • Mellor F, Foley T, Connolly M, Mercer V, Spanswick M. Role of a clinical facilitator in introducing an integrated care pathway for the care of the dying. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2004;10(10):497-501.
Mirando 2005 {published data only}
Neo 2012 {published data only}
  • Neo PS, Poon MC, Peh TY, Ong SY, Koo WH, Santoso U, et al. Improvements in end-of-life care with a protocol-based pathway for cancer patients dying in a Singapore hospital. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore 2012;41(11):489-93.
Okon 2004 {published data only}
  • Okon TR, Evans JM, Gomez CF, Blackhall LJ. Palliative educational outcome with implementation of PEACE tool integrated clinical pathway. Journal of Palliative Medicine 2004;7(2):279-95.
Osterlind 2008 {published data only}
  • Osterlind J, Hansebo G, Lantz G, Ternestedt BM. Pathways in end-of-life care for older people: care managers' reasoning. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2008;14(9):420-5.
Peterson 2000 {published data only}
  • Peterson JL, Hartman HW. A pathway for patients who die within a week of hospice admission. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2000;6(1):39-42.
Pooler 2003 {published data only}
  • Pooler J, McCrory F, Steadman Y, Westwell H, Peers S. Dying at home: a care pathway for the last days of life in a community setting. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2003;9(6):258-64.
Rose 2006 {published data only}
  • Rose V. Evidence Base End of Life Care for Dying Patients and their Families in the Acute Health Care Setting. North Coast Area Health Service, NSW Health. North Coast Area Health Service, 2006.
Taylor 2007 {published data only}
  • Taylor AJ, Randall C. Process mapping: enhancing the implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2007;13(4):163-7.
Thompson-Hill 2009 {published data only}
  • Thompson-Hill J, Hookey C, Salt E, O'Neill T. The supportive care plan: a tool to improve communication in end-of-life care. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 2009;15(5):250-5.
Veerbeek 2006 {published data only}
  • Veerbeek L, van Zuylen L, Gambles M, Swart SJ, van der Heide A, van der Rijt CC, et al. Audit of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient in a Dutch cancer hospital. Journal of Palliative Care 2006;22(4):305-8.
Veerbeek 2008 {published data only}
  • Veerbeek L, van der Heide A, de Vogel-Voogt E, de Bakker R, van der Rijt CC, Swart SJ, et al. Using the LCP: bereaved relatives' assessments of communication and bereavement. The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care 2008;25(3):207-14.
Veerbeek 2008a {published data only}
  • Veerbeek L, van Zuylen L, Swart SJ, van der Maas PJ, de Vogel-Voogt E, van der Rijt CC, et al. The effect of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying: a multi-centre study. Palliative Medicine 2008;22(2):145-51.

References to studies awaiting assessment

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Notes
  18. Characteristics of studies
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Costantini 2013 {published data only}
  • Costantini M, Romoli V, Beccaro M, Bono L, Pilastri P, Miccinesi G, et al. Liverpool Care Pathway for patients with cancer in hospital. A cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2013;Published online:1-12.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Notes
  18. Characteristics of studies
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Addington-Hall 2007
  • Addington-Hall JM. Introduction. Research Methods in Palliative Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Badger 2007
  • Badger F, Thomas K, Clifford C. Raising standards for elderly people dying in care homes. European Journal of Palliative Care 2007;14(6):238-41.
Bruera 1991
  • Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller M, Selmser P, Macmillan K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. Journal of Palliative Care 1991;7:6-9.
Campbell 1998
  • Campbell H, Hotchikiss R, Bradshaw N, Proteous M. Integrated care pathways. BMJ 1998;316:133-7.
Chalmers 1983
Cohen 1995
  • Cohen S, Mount B, Strobel M, Bui F. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire: a measure of quality of life appropriate for people with advanced disease. A preliminary study of validity and acceptability. Palliative Medicine 1995;9(3):207-19.
Constantini 2011
  • Constantini M, Leo SD, Beccaro M. Methodological issues in a before-after study design to evaluate the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient in Hospital. Palliative Medicine 2011;25(8):766-73.
Currow 2011
Deeks 2003
  • Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakaovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment 2003;7(27):1-4.
Delvin 2009
  • Delvin K. Controversial 'death' pathway. The Daily Telegraph 13 October 2009.
Department of Health 2008
  • Department of Health. End of life care strategy: promoting high quality care for all adults at the end of life. London: Department of Health, 2008.
Department of Health and Ageing 2011
  • Department of Health and Ageing. Supporting Australians to Live Well at the End of Life-National Palliative Care Strategy 2010. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011.
Ellershaw 2003a
  • Ellershaw J, Wilkinson S. Care for the dying: a Pathway to Excellence. Care for the Dying: a Pathway to Excellence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
EPOC 2002
  • Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. Data collection checklist, 2002. epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf (accessed 12 November 2013).
Fowell 2004
  • Fowell A, Russell I, Johnstone R, Finlay I, Russell D. Cluster randomisation or randomised consent as an appropriate methodology for trials in palliative care: a feasibility study [ISRCTN60243484]. BMC Palliative Care 2004;3(1):1.
Fowell 2006
  • Fowell A, Johnstone R, Finlay IG, Russell D, Russell IT. Design of trials with dying patients: a feasibility study of cluster randomisation versus randomised consent. Palliative Medicine 2006;20(8):799-804.
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2012]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Karlawish 2003
Kawn 2004
Lemmens 2008
Lunney 2003
  • Lunney JR, Lynn J, Foley DJ, Lipson S, Guralnik JM. Patterns of functional decline at the end of life. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003;2879(19):2387-92.
McConnell 2013
  • McConnell T, O'Halloran P, Porter S, Donnelly M. Systematic realist review of key factors affecting the successful implementation and sustainability of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 2013:In press.
Medical Research Council 2000
  • Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. Medical Research Council, 2000.
Mills 1994
  • Mills M, Davies H, Macrae W. Care of dying patients in hospital. BMJ 1994;309:583-6.
Ministry of Health NZ 2013
  • Ministry of Health NZ. Resource and Capability Framework for Integrated Adult Palliative Care Services in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Health NZ, 2013.
Mularski 2007
National Health Service 2005
  • Thomas K. Gold Standards Framework. Department of Health 2005.
Neuberger 2013
  • Neuberger J, Guthrie C, Aaronvitch D, Hameed K, Bonser T, Harries R, et al. More care, less pathway: a review of the Liverpool Care Pathway, 2013. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212450/Liverpool_Care_Pathway.pdf.
Parry 2013
  • Parry R, Seymour J, Whittaker B, Bird L, Cox K. Rapid evidence review: pathways focused on the dying phase in end of life care and their key components. National End of Life Care Programme, NHS, 2013.
Portenoy 1994
  • Portenoy R, Thaler H, Kornblith A, McCarthy L, Friedlanderklar H, Sobel K, et al. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. European Journal of Cancer 1994;30(9):1326-36.
RevMan 2012
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Reyna 2008
  • Reyna Y, Bennett M, Bruera E. Ethical and practical issues in designing and conducting clinical trials in palliative care. In: Addington-Hall J, Bruera E, Higginson I, Payne S editor(s). Research Methods in Palliative Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Rotter 2008
  • Rotter T, Kugler J, Koch R, Gothe H, Twork S, van Oostrum JM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of clinical pathways on length of stay, hospital costs, and patient outcomes. BMC Health Service Research 2008;8(1):265.
Sacks 1982
Smith 2009
  • Smith R. More training needed following concerns about death pathway: cancer tsar. The Daily Telegraph 17 October 2009.
Steinhauser 2000
  • Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, McIntyre L, Tulsky JA. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians and other care providers. Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;284(19):2476-82.
Steinhauser 2001
  • Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, Grambow S, Parker J, et al. Preparing for the end of life: preferences of patients, families, physicians, and other care providers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2001;22(3):727-37.
Teno 2001
Travis 2002
  • Travis S, Bernard M, Dixon S, McAuley W, Loving G, McClanahan L. Obstacles to palliation and end-of-life care in a long-term care facility. The Gerontologist 2002;42(3):342-9.
United Nations 2002
  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Ageing 1950-2050. United Nations Population Division, 2002.
WHO 2004
  • World Health Organization. Better Palliative Care for Older People. Geneva: WHO, 2004.
WHO 2009
  • World Health Organization. WHO definition of palliative care. www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/ (accessed 12 November 2013).
WHO and Cancer Research UK 2012
  • World Health Organization and Cancer Research UK. World Cancer Factsheet. WHO and Cancer Research UK, 2012.
Zelen 1990
Zigmond 1983