Objectives The aim of this evaluation is to describe the components and results of urgent care planning in Coordinate My Care (CMC), a digital clinical service for patients with life-limiting illness, for use if a patient is unable to make or express choices. Ceiling of treatment (CoT) plans were created detailing where the patient would like to receive their care and how aggressive medical interventions should be.
Methods A retrospective service evaluation was completed of all CMC records created between December 2015 and September 2016 (n=6854). CMC records were divided into two cohorts: those with a CoT plan and those without. The factors associated with these cohorts were reviewed including age, diagnosis, resuscitation status and preferences for place of death (PPD). Analysis of the non-mandatory free text section was carried out.
Results Two-thirds of patients had recorded decisions about CoT. Regardless of which CoT option was chosen, for most patients, PPD was home or care home. Patients with a CoT plan were more likely to have a documented resuscitation status. Patients with a CoT were more likely to die in their PPD (82%vs71%, OR 1.79, p<0.0001). A higher proportion of patients with a CoT decision died outside hospital.
Conclusion This analysis demonstrates that a substantial proportion of patients are willing to engage in urgent care planning. Three facets of urgent care planning identified include PPD, CoT and resuscitation status.
- end of life care
- terminal care
- service evaluation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors HB undertook the service evaluation, data analysis and writing report. JD , JR designed the service evaluation. JD, JR and TC assisted in the writing of the article. AS was involved in the data gathering and technical help.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.
Ethics approval Research and Development Team Royal Marsden Hospital.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The title has been corrected.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.