Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Palliative Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, P. M
Right arrow Articles by Noble, B.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, P. M
Right arrow Articles by Noble, B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

What progress has been made towards implementing national guidance on end of life care? A national survey of UK general practices

Philippa M Hughes1*, Peter A Bath2, Nisar Ahmed1, and Bill Noble1

1 Academic Unit of Supportive Care Sykes House
2 Centre for Health Information Management Research, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: p.m.hughes{at}sheffield.ac.uk.


   Abstract

The objectives of this study were to establish the extent to which UK primary care has adopted recommended practices on supportive and palliative care of adults with cancer, and to relate this to participation in national initiatives. We conducted a cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey of a random sample of UK general practices. In total, 60.0% of practices (2096 of 3495) responded to the survey: 61.5% reported involvement with the Gold Standards Framework (GSF); 24.4% with the Liverpool or other End of Life Care Pathway; 12.3%, with the Preferred Place of Care (PPC) initiative; and 8.4% with Advance Care Planning (ACP). Participation in GSF contributed most to the variance in practice organization scores; and practice organization scores contributed most to the variance in clinical care scores. Participation in ACP or PPC, and higher clinical care scores were associated with an increased likelihood of reported high rates of death at home for cancer patients. Our findings appear to support the role of national initiatives in improving the quality of end-of-life care delivery in general practice. A population-based study would be required to assess the effect of end of life care on clinical outcomes and patient or carer experience.

First published on October 16, 2009
Palliative Medicine 2009, doi:10.1177/0269216309346591


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?