How good is end of life care for patients dying with cystic fibrosis?

BACKGROUND: Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting illness. Audit of the care of patients dying of CF has not been published to date. METHODS: Newcastle and Oxford teams adapted the National Audit of Care at the End of Life and agreed additional questions that were particularly pertinent for patients dying as a consequence of their CF. Data were extracted and analysed for 15 patients. RESULTS: On recognition that the patient was dying, the CF teams were less good at reviewing the need for physiological observations (50% vs national 70%) but better at reviewing the need for capillary blood glucose monitoring, oxygen support and intravenous antibiotics compared with the national average for all patients.On recognition that the patient was dying, the CF teams were better at assessing pain (87% vs national 80%) and breathlessness (93% vs national 73%), but less good at assessing nausea and vomiting (47% vs national 74%).There was documented evidence that 100% of families and 64% of patients were aware that the patient was at risk of dying. CONCLUSION: Comparing care of this sample of patients dying with CF against the national data is a useful first step in understanding that many aspects of care are of high quality. This audit identifies the need to offer earlier conversations to patients as their voices may be missing from the conversation. Undertaking a national audit would provide a more reliable and a fuller picture.

Inequalities in awareness and availability of bereavement services in North-East England.

OBJECTIVES: National guidance recommends equality in access to bereavement services; despite this, awareness and availability appears inconsistent. The aim of this study was to explore availability and accessibility of bereavement services across the North-East of England and to highlight issues potentially applicable across the UK, at a time of unprecedented need due to the impact of COVID-19. METHODS: Phase 1: an eight item, web-based survey was produced. A survey link was cascaded to all GP practices (General Practitioners) in the region. Phase 2: an email was sent to all services identified in phase 1, requesting details such as referral criteria and waiting times. RESULTS: All 392 GP practices in the region were invited to participate. The response rate was 22% (85/392). Twenty-one per cent (18/85) of respondents reported that they do not refer patients, comments included 'not aware of any services locally'. A total of 36 services were contacted with 72% responding with further information. Most bereavement specific support was reliant on charity-funded services including hospices, this sometimes required a pre-existing link with the hospice. Waiting times were up to 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple different, usually charity-funded services were identified, awareness and accessibility were variable. This survey was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, where complex situations surrounding death is likely to impact on the usual grieving process and increase the need for bereavement support. Meanwhile, charities providing this support are under severe financial strain. There is an urgent need to bridge the gap between need and access to bereavement services.