Sunday, 31 October 2010

The CQC: death, gender, disability, mental health, religion and sexual identity.

The CQC is a giant spider that has been directed to spin its web over the former Health Care Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI).  It is not mature enough to deal with the massive task that it is expected to undertake, nor does in have the spider power to fulfil its required tasks.  It makes mistakes!  Its intricate web is full of holes.  It has become a predator that eats itself!

It does however, have the ability to write great paper work!  Although I realise that its territory is now wider than 'starring' nursing  homes (which it doesn't do anymore and there is nothing yet in place to replace it!) - it does write a pretty mean 'Statutary notification' of death, that covers both hospital environments and care home settings.

This is (or was) was going to be it (the viewing of the document) - but now it aint!  Although I can recover the document on my personal site as I have saved it - it now shows 'error on the page' if I write the URL here!  So much for the CQC!  I have re-entered the CQC site and can no longer find this document!

Breaking it down on my print out (lucky I did this!), Sections 1-3 relate to location,  person and circumstances of death and are mandatory.   Section 4 asks for details of  the last person involved in providing care - but it is not mandatory.  Why not?  Sections 5-9 relate to medicines and medical devices and possible errors that could have caused death - yet are still not mandatory.  Why?  If we are going to have all this paperwork - it has to mean something.  It must have a purpose.  If not, why the need for it?

Section 10 deals with gender, ethnicity, disability, mental health, religion and sexual identity - again not mandatory but...why O why does it matter?    It is requested that non-mandatory information be provided.

If Mrs. Miggins was a white, Irish, disabled Zoroastrian with mental health issues relating to her doubts over her sexual identity - why does it matter?  She is dead!  Who will collate this unnecessary information?  What purpose does it serve? 

Please tell me - for I do not know!

Anna :o[  ???

Thursday, 28 October 2010

29/10/10 is 'Wear it Pink Today!'

October is Breast Awareness Month.

One of the tiny little problems of being a nurse is that some folk think you have the knowledge base of a doctor - which of course you don't!

They will show you lumps and bumps and ask your opinion - or ask you this and that and expect an answer.  I can't give them one and suggest they see their doctor.  I have often been asked about mammograms and until earlier this year - would always suggest it made good sense to go ahead.

I have had one myself which proves I am ancient!  Of late, I have been swayed by medical opinion that it is perhaps not a good idea.  Or is it?

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  Astra Zenaca, who manufacture Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the Awareness Month in 1995, its aim being to promote mammograms as the most effective weapon in detecting breast cancer.

Is this Big Pharma serving their best interests, directing medical care or just a nice thing to do; maybe the latter?

Although hearing similar stories last year, the seeds of doubt were sown in my mind in January, when I read reports such as this in The Telegraph.  It suggested that, despite a reported 1,400 lives saved per year - there is no evidence that the breast screening programme has saved lives and in fact, women have wrongly been told that they have breast cancer and undergo unnecessary surgery on tumours that would not progress to being harmful.

This article was based on this at the Nordic Cochrane Centre and was swiftly refuted by NHS choices who claimed that the research was a narrative review critiquing the 2008 Annual Review of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP), which reported on twenty years of mammogram screening in the UK.  See here for further details.

In March this year this article appeared in The Telegraph stating that two lives are saved 'for every woman unnecessarily treated'.  It is interesting reading.  It is admitted here that leaflets supplied did not inform of potential risks of screening.

Adverse effects of mammographic breast screening include:

Psychological and physical morbidity - mainly associated with false-positives.

False negatives - approximately 5% of cancers in women over the age of fifty are mammographically invisible.

A diagnosis of cancer that would not have become symptomatic during a woman's lifetime.

Radiation risk - an estimate that one extra breast cancer develops every year in women over fifty, after a latent period of up to ten years, for each million women screened.

There is undoubtedly harm related to breast screening - but there must be some good!?  A detection rate of 6.2 cancers - although some would be of the 'no harm' kind (?) - per 1000 women screened; of these, invasive cancers accounted for 1.4 per 1000.  This reported 1.4 - to me - suggests the risk is worthwhile?  However, if you visit NNT it seems that breast screening is a harmful waste of time.

Furthermore, regular self-examination is a waste of time too!  See here!

There is so much conflicting information, I am left a little confused!  I think I shall probably attend my next, unless something more robust convinces me otherwise.  I will still recommend that other women do too.  But should I?  Should I say - "Look at the evidence and make your own decision"?

What are your thoughts?

Anna :o]

PS We must (as girlies) take some responsibility for our health!  Poor diet, obesity and binge drinking may lead to breast cancer!

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Good Old Copperfield!

"Life Is Not A Bed Of Roses"  or
"Living With Dementia".

Good Old Copperfield!  I love this blog in Pulse!  These two GPs always offer a wonderful insight into the joys and woes of their world.

Take a look at this weeks article "What, if not antipsychotics?"  It is pure truth and I love them for it!

The majority of people I am proud to care for have some form of dementia.  We are strange in our home for we regard the residents as our employers - we work for them!

Living with dementia is not a bed of roses; it is not two sweet little old ladies enjoying tea and scones and a confused chat - although it can be for a lucky few.  Some residents are lucky in that they are totally apathetic and appear to suffer no emotional harm.  But perhaps they do in the quiet strange place in which they dwell - I don't know.

Living with dementia is about existing in a frightening, alien world where even you closest family will eventually become strangers.  For some - it must be akin to being in a permanent drunken stupor where you touch, feel and attempt to understand and make sense of  all that is around you - but you can't.

It is about Annie, who, when waking in the morning finds herself in a strange room and she is frightened!  Strangers enter her room and talk to her - but she doesn't understand what they are saying.  They continue talking as they help her from her bed and begin to undress her and prepare her for her day.   But she screams "Police!  Police!" and kicks and bites and punches, for she fears she is being raped.

It is about Jim - who despite family fears that it would be harmful - has been told that he has dementia by his psychogeriatrician, for he believes that Jim has a right to know and it is in Jim's best interests.  What about Jim's right not to know?  Jim is angry, agitated, anxious and so very afraid.  He is tormented and his family can no longer cope with the stress that caring for Jim brings.

He has entered nursing care much earlier than would perhaps have been required if he had not known.  He is resentful and insulted by required, personal interventions and reacts with extreme violence.  He sleeps little and wanders the home, entering others bedrooms as he searches for his wife.  He requires 1-1 observations through the night as he is a danger to himself and others.

After other meds have been tried and have not alleviated his distress - he is prescribed antipsychotics and after a while he is calmer, but still a little troubled.  He now eats and joins in activities and sleeps.  His life has regained a certain quality.

It is about Betty who is a long term resident.  She has in her time, worked as a barmaid and a carer.  When she first arrived she would attempt  (as if driven by routine) to tidy the home - clearing away plates and cups before residents had finished their meals.  These residents reacted in anger and sometimes physical conflict ensued - for social inhibitions often fly away when you have dementia.  She attempted to 'go home' with staff - thinking she had finished her shift - and when she couldn't, would erupt into violent behaviour.  She was prescribed antipsychotics and calmed and regained a certain quality to her life.

They were taken away from her earlier this year, following the DOHs insistence that side effects outweighed benefits with regards to the elderly.  She is now again that poor, mad, tormented and very distressed soul; she wanders the home, interfering with others and invading their space.  They slap her and she slaps back.
We fill in Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults forms for all involved and send them off to the powers that be and all is tickety-boo!  But who is the vulnerable adult here?  Betty who is now permanently tormented to meet DOH directives or the poor souls whose space she persistently invades?

Given the choice - I would rather live five years of a drug-induced calm - where my life had a level of quality than seven years existing in a permanent, living hell on earth.

I agree with Copperfield in that it is socially unacceptable to allow the elderly to suffer in torment.  Why do we allow it?

Anna.

Saturday, 16 October 2010

Isn't Technology Wonderful?

Microsoft's SenseCam
Please visit Time magazines photogallery re "A Simple Camera Helps an Amnesiac".

Also when there, click onto Claire's story.

As no doubt you realise - I love Time magazine!  I love the little snippets of information it gives as well as a wider view of all that is happening in the world around us and often above us.

I love the way it plops through my letterbox on a Saturday morning as if in an invitation to share its knowledge within.

Anna :o]

Saturday, 9 October 2010

A 1,000 Registered Managers are Missing From Care Homes!

I have just read this in Nursing Times.net. 
It states that registered managers are missing from 1,000 care homes.  I can understand this as you must be a masochist to take on this momentous task.

No longer are care managers able to operate hands on care - for they are bogged now with mandatory paperwork!  Duplication is the name of the game!  Local authorities now demand  the same paperwork (if not more) than the CQC and do their own inspections.

This must be in place and that must be in place for innumerable agencies!  Risk assessments are there for everything, including possible toxic vapours from photocopiers!

Local authorities now demand their own induction for new starters!  Managers must now sign off over a hundred and twenty questions relating to the care that new carers and nurses provide.  Nurses must now state on Mar Charts why they administer analgesia, anti-emetics, meds for constipation and creams!  I don't know - why do we?

There are so many mandatory training requirements - that you need to employ more staff than the home needs - purely to cover staff that are attending training.  Staff are so dazed with all these training requirements that they cease to listen - they are tired of it!  I am!  I truly believe that repetitive training videos are a sure fire cure for insomnia - as I certainly fight sleep!  Doctors - pick up on this!

Employment laws now mean that carers or nurses who don't care, can no longer have their employment terminated - unless gross misconduct is involved.  Their rights are paramount and stuff the residents!  I would think that a caring attitude is essential in these roles - but not so!

It is well recognised that some of those newly pregnant seek out roles in care.  They declare their pregnancy not long after starting and the law entitles them to 'soft options' and their fellow carers have to take the brunt of this.  There is also a knock-on effect to the level of caring offered to the residents.

On top of this, there is the antagonistic approach of some GPs - but after reading an article in Pulse - I understand this a bit more and will write about it later.  GPs - talk to us as we do not realise that care homes put pressure on your practice!

If care homes are breaking the law by not having registered managers in the home, what are the CQC going to do about it?  Provide saints or people teetering on the edge of insanity to fill the posts?  At present - you have to be one or the other!

Care of residents will suffer.  It is inevitable.  Managers cannot manage a home if they are swamped in paperwork!

Anna :o[

Friday, 8 October 2010

"For the Beauty of the Earth"

Time magazine photo gallery.


Please visit Time magazines photo gallery of newly discovered species in Papua, New Guinea.  Truly beautiful!



As an aside,  the title of the post "For the Beauty of the Earth" is a hymn written by Folliot S. Pierpoint (1835-1917).  Wiki reports that he wrote the hymn while "mesmerised by the beauty of the countryside that surrounded him".  I know the feeling!  And No, I am not trying to sell religion as I am an atheist!

One day, while still at junior school, a worrying rumour spread like wildfire round the school, in that, the following day (at noon) would be the end of the world!  The earth would be enveloped in catastrophic tidal waves and life would cease to exist!  Worried kids sought comfort and explanations from teachers and parents - but did not believe what we were told.

The Armageddon morning, in assembly, we sang "For the Beauty of the Earth" for the first time; the hymn being hauntingly beautiful and the tune a little melancholy - which was certain proof (to us) that indeed, the end of the world was nigh!

I lived by the South Coast then, and the school dining room had one very large wall which was made entirely of glass.  We kids on first sitting cringed in fear as we stared at the panoramic window, waiting for the tidal wave to envelop us all.  Never happened of course and I can't remember whether the dinner was good that day!

But I have always remembered the hymn and therefore the memory of that day.  Have you any interesting Armageddon stories?

Possibly interesting: "Dear God!  Man!" is an anagram of Armageddon.

Anna :o]

Thursday, 7 October 2010

A Nice U-turn by NICE.

Will our elderly and vulnerable be respected and given the drug treatment they deserve?

Thousands of patients with early stage Alzheimer's could now benefit from drug treatment following a U-turn by The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).  Presently, doctors are unable to prescribe donepezil, rivastigimine and galantamine to early stage patients to enable them to retain their mental faculties longer.

In 2005, NICE ruled that no Alzheimer sufferer should receive these drugs on the NHS (based on efficacy of treatment and value for money), and they then conceded in 2007 that only patients with moderate disease should receive them.

However, the decision was contested by drug companies and the Alzheimer's Society who queried the 'secret formula' used by NICE to calculate value for money.  The case went to the House of Lords and the secret formula was amended after NICE conceded technical inaccuracies.  This did not lead to a change in outcome.

Further campaigning by doctors, patients, families and the Alzheimer's Society has led to the new guidelines and recommendations.

NICE has also ruled that a fourth drug Ebixa should be made available for those with severe forms of Alzheimer's and for some with moderate disease.

It does appear to be good news!  In fact, brilliant news!

Anna G :o]

PS  For those of you who doubt the integrity of drug companies - you might find this interesting  which I stumbled across while researching. 

Monday, 4 October 2010

Are your personal emails being scanned?

While at work yesterday I came across

Fridays edition of the Metro which I hadn't read, so proceeded to do so.  The headline was "Online snoops put Britain in the dock" which caught my interest.

It reports that Britain has been flouting European rules on internet privacy re online snooping for eighteen months and is been taken to court.

BT began testing Phorm software in 2006 to monitor internet activity to identify customers surfing habits and then place targeted advertisements on websites visited.  If you visit Phorm's website it does not mention scanning personal emails.

The majority of my incoming mail is from nursing/medical sites and sure enough all adverts relate to same.  Really I don't have a problem with this.

Oddly enough, on Saturday, when reading an incoming email from a friend, I noticed that the adverts related to the two main themes of my received, personal, private email.  I had never noticed this before as I pay little or no attention to the adverts.  I mentioned this find to my son who remarked that it was "Sinister".

After reading said article in the Metro I decided to browse through all my personal, saved emails.  In approximately 95% of cases - sure enough, the adverts related to themes in the letter.  Sheep were mentioned in one and all adverts related to sheep.  A friend mentioned that a close relative was near death in another and adverts in the sidebar related to palliative care, medical treatments, emergency surgery, etc - now I find this sick!

I do have a serious problem with my personal received and sent emails being scanned for the purpose of advertising.  It is not right and it is sinister!

Check your personal emails!

I am pleased that Britain is being hauled before the European Court of Justice!

Anna





Saturday, 2 October 2010

Palaeopathology and Political Correctness?

Bonkers or brave?

recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics discusses issues relating to biomedical research on the mummified remains of ancient human bodies.

It proposes that in an effort to gain further understanding of disease - we may be violating the rights and best interests of our ancient ancestors as they were unable to give informed consent.

Do you agree with this or do you think it is political correctness gone mad?

Alibaster.

Thursday, 23 September 2010

The Air That We Breathe

What have we become?  How cold and indifferent to the suffering of others can we be?

When did cost override the need for care?  How would the NHS cope without these hidden, ignored carers who exist quietly and proudly (but unrewarded for the effort that they do) in our society?

Why should NED have to plead his case for  his sons oxygen?

It is a disgrace!

Anna G

Monday, 20 September 2010

The Liverpool Care Pathway.......


.......and all is not perfect.
Where was the dignity in this death? Where was the care as in Care Pathway?
Worrying stuff!
Anna

Please click on label: The Liverpool Care Pathway for previous post.

13.3.11  Please visit Liverpool Care Pathway - Good, Bad or Ugly?
See Blog List Opposite.

Saturday, 18 September 2010

A Different Aspect of Alcohol

Everything has beauty!
When abused, alcohol reeks devastating effects...
...but at microscopic levels, it innocently portrays a strange artistic beauty!
See here at Time magazine.
Anna G.

Thursday, 16 September 2010

The Harm That We Do.

Peter.

Peter's early childhood had been a little less than ordinary although it might have been considered ordinary at that time. Born in 1951, the second eldest son and the middle child of a brother and sister. Peter was an intelligent, reflective and a shy child, having just one good friend. He did not appear unhappy. He did well at school and at end of year exams was anywhere between first and third in a given subject. He was described by his teachers as intelligent, but it was noted he did not achieve his full potential. It was also noted that he did not appear to have many friends.

At puberty he showed the angst of many a teenager; hostile and argumentative; prone to episodes of self-doubt and anger brimming over to tearfulness and resentful of his parents. His parents were quite unprepared for this as, due to his calmness, inquisitiveness and apparent happiness, they had assumed he would sail through puberty unscathed.

As his teenage years progressed, he became increasingly troubled; his hostility towards his parents increased and any attempts (by them) to communicate with him were tantamount to entering into battle; he isolated himself in his bedroom and from his one true friend (who was becoming increasingly fearful of him); he was absent from school often; his siblings regarded him as 'odd' and due to the selfishness that often appears in teenage years - they excluded him from their lives; at times, but rarely, he would seek out his mother (for comfort) and cry for hours and voice fears that there 'was something wrong with him.'

He left school after failing all his GCEs. He did not attempt to find work and continued to exist almost entirely in his bedroom. He was now friendless. He began to accuse his parents of poisoning his food as he knew they were disappointed in him and that he would never live up to their expectations of him. He quickly began to lose weight and his parents could hear him crying and shouting in his locked room. It was at this time that his parents finally admitted to themselves that something was indeed wrong and they requested their GP to visit.
He was sectioned and hospitalised. His involuntary incarceration deepened his belief that his parents wanted rid of him. His fellow patients frightened him. Across time he began to trust his psychiatrist and opened up, telling of intrusive thoughts and voices and of a feeling of low self-worth. He stated that he was frightened of the demons that he felt lived within him.

He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and with careful titration of meds over several months - he eventually rediscovered some of the calmness of his early years. He was discharged and returned home. He remained (self) isolated and became an avid reader of all things religious.

As time passed by, he realised that He was the second coming of Christ. The proof (to him) was irrefutable; the attempts to demonise his mind by those who lived inside his head and taunted him; the fact that he felt no love or connection to his parents; the final proof was the clues he now saw all around him (ideas of reference) and that now he was receiving messages directly from God via his radio.

Careful and intelligent as he was, he kept this knowledge to himself. He knew that to save himself from a second crucifixion, he would have to resolve this matter alone. He also knew that he was being deliberately kept docile by the medication he received - and ceased to take it, as it was now obvious to him that the psychiatrist in whom he had held in complete trust was part of the conspiracy to silence him.

He gathered Jewish sounding names from the telephone directory and when alone in the house, would phone and taunt these unknown victims of his delusions, mouthing obscenities and telling that they would not crucify him again. He attempted to burn down a synagogue and was arrested and sectioned and spent many years in hospital.

He was never to return home again as his parents could not deal with the stress of attempting to cope with him. His siblings were embarrassed by him and angry at him for the anguish he caused their parents and disowned him.

He became a revolving door patient, existing either in hospital or rented accommodation, sometimes doss houses. He required high dose maintenance to control his symptoms. He became totally reliant on doctors, holding their opinions in high esteem. He was intelligent enough to have thoroughly acquainted himself with an in-depth knowledge of his schizophrenia and at times, utilised this knowledge when feeling depressed to gain (false) entry to hospital to fulfil his need to talk to doctors.

During his last hospitalisation he was rediagnosed with schizo-affective disorder due to his mood disorder and intermittent depression. It was felt that it would be wise for Peter to be discharged into a care home setting where he could be monitored and hopefully feel safe. Peter agreed to this.

Peter was forty-nine when he entered the care home. Although he would talk at times to fellow residents - he was unable to gain their friendship. He was well liked by staff who availed themselves whenever he wished to discuss any topic - but when experiencing delusional thoughts, he would not enter into conversation as they were not doctors. He regularly saw his psychiatrist who was happy with Peters placement and noted some improvement in his condition.

Sometimes he expressed his anger at being in a care home as he regarded it as a prison and staff would talk through his need to be there. Accompanied by staff, Peter would attend football matches, the theatre and restaurants and occasionally an aunt who maintained limited contact.

He still believed that he was a reincarnation of Christ and would at times refuse his medication, viewing it as an attempt to poison his mind and that they (the staff) wanted him dead. His symptoms would intensify and it required a GP visit to put this to right. His TV and radio would be removed, whenever requested, when he felt the 'demons' were trying to infiltrate his mind. Staff knew him and accommodated him.

During his five years at the home he had never required hospitalisation.

The End Of Life Care Strategy.

Dr Nice was indeed a very nice man and a very good doctor. He was favoured by many patients on his practice list and it was a rare occasion for there to be a gap in his daily appointments. At times he would have welcomed the occasional break - but his patients came first.

He, like all GPs in his area, had been contacted by his PCT and invited to take part in its End Of Life Care Strategy aimed at local care homes. He offered himself forward as a Link GP who would be assigned to a particular care home after study days and a meeting of all concerned.

The meeting was attended by GPs, organisations and nurses involved in palliative care, representatives from care homes and other interested individuals. Overall it was a good meeting and most homes readily agreed to take part in the project. A few hummed and hared, voicing fears that discussing Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment (ADRT) with their particular client group would be detrimental to the clients well-being; or it would break the trust they enjoyed with their residents; or they questioned the need for it. Dr Nice was a little alarmed about the hostility shown towards those who expressed concerns.

Dr Nice had been assigned one of these homes as a Link GP. Two months had passed and he had not received any completed ADRTs, so he phoned the home and arranged a meeting with the manager.

Mrs. I Know My Residents (the manager) had a long discussion with Dr Nice re ADRTs and the sudden need for them. She expressed concerns that with an ADRT in place, hospitalised residents - particularly if they were elderly - might not receive life sustaining treatment . She also expressed concerns that discussing end of life care with particular residents might impact on their well-being and she mentioned Peter.

Dr Nice nodded thoughtfully; after due consideration, he concluded that residents would receive more patient centred care with an ADRT in place; he also concluded that Peter had the same rights as everyone else to determine his end of life care. Mrs. IKMR acknowledged in her thoughts that Dr Nice was a very nice man - but wondered what planet he was living on.

Mrs. IKMRs declared that she accepted Dr Nice's opinion, but that she did not want her staff to conduct these interviews, as they enjoyed trusting and therapeutic relationships with the resident group. Dr Nice took this on board and requested that appointments could be made with three residents (including Peter) the following Monday and he would begin discussions re ADRTs. Mrs. IKMR reluctantly agreed (fearing that non-compliance would be viewed negatively with the CQC, GPs, hospitals and the local authority and referrals might dry up).

Peter was informed that Dr Nice would visit him on Monday to discuss any thoughts he might have about his care if he became seriously ill. Peter was thrilled as this was an unrequested visit and he felt that at long last he was being taken seriously.

That Monday, Peter was introduced to Dr Nice and a staff member was also present. Peter spoke quickly to Dr Nice, expressing his delusional thoughts at great length and Dr Nice responded appropriately.

After some time, and when he felt the time was right, Dr Nice began to (sensitively) discuss his own agenda. Peter was horrified, his implicit trust in the medical profession destroyed as he sought to make sense of what he had just heard; for it appeared to him that his doctors now wanted him dead too and were asking him to take part in the plan. He exploded into a wild rage and Dr Nice desperately attempted to rescue the situation. But the damage was done.

Peter, point blank - from that moment forth - refused all medication as he now knew it was poisoned. His mental health deteriorated rapidly and he was sectioned and hospitalised four days later. He has now been an in-patient for seven months.

But the box has been ticked!
"Thispolicy driven in the UK despite a weak evidence base." paper describes the protocol of a multidisciplinary study that will provide timely and essential insights into an area of end of life care, ACP, which has become
This quote can be found in the last paragraph of "Background" - not Abstract! The red highlights are mine
Anna G.





Wednesday, 8 September 2010

The UK - Abusers of Alcohol? (Part One).

There has been much in the media of late regarding the minimum pricing of alcohol and Scotland, Wales and twelve councils in Greater Manchester are moving towards this. The Welsh Assembly Government would like to take charge of rules surrounding alcohol sales, this including licensing hours, advertising and minimum pricing and would involve devolving the Licensing Act 2003. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 came into effect on 1st September 2009 and minimum pricing is set to be introduced next year.

It would appear that David Cameron, who initially stated that (minimum pricing) would impact only on those on a low income and he would not give his support to it, has changed his mind and is bending to what he sees as a shift in public opinion, publicly backing Greater Manchester Councils plans to bring in minimum pricing."Healthy Nudges" (HN) as commissioned by the Facullty of Public Health only a week before. The same questions pertaining to minimum pricing received a different response, that is: For: 45% (HN) as opposed to 40%. Against: 44% (HN) as opposed to 47%. Don't know: 11% (HN) as opposed to 13%.

There are concerns however, regarding the legality of minimum pricing, as both the UK government and legal experts believe there is a possibility that it breaks European competition law.

Furthermore, the Home Office attempted to resurrect the consultation paper on the previous goverments' drug strategy for England, Wales and Scotland. This paper proposed that those addicted to drugs and alcohol could have their welfare benefits withdrawn if they refused treatment. The Labour government intended to carry out pilot schemes this year in an attempt to get those with drug and alcohol addictions back into work. However in May, the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an independent statutory body, said withdrawing benefits would lead to crime and prostitution. The coalition government scrapped the pilot scheme.

It is interesting to note that the media focused almost entirely on those addicted to drugs and it would appear that drug addiction is more socially acceptable than alcohol addiction. It is important to note that those who drink in a harmful or hazardous way - an estimated 24% of the adult population, far outnumber (both casual and addicted) drug users - an estimated 1 - 50.

It is my intention to focus on alcohol abuse.

YouGov published another one of its wonderful surveys entitled SixthSense which dealt with issues surrounding alcohol. It found that 47% or respondents were against a minimum price (50p) per alcohol unit and 40% were for it. It also found that 78% of UK adults admitted that a minimum price would have no effect on the amount of alcohol they drink and 45% of those who visit pubs on a regular basis, would buy alcohol at the supermarket and drink it at home, because of the cost. The total number of respondents was 2152 and a large majority drank alcohol.

It is interesting to compare this survey with that of

It is obvious that the bias of responders alters the outcome and therefore both surveys lack validity. Both had small sample sizes, yet YouGov and the Faculty of Public Health seem content to accept the findings as representative of the country as a whole. As YouGovs own survey contradicted the survey commmisssioned by the FPH - it is suprising that they published it!

There can be no doubt that the UK appears to have an 'alcohol problem' with an estimated 24% of adults drinking in a hazardous or harmful way. I do wonder why the government introduced the extended licensing hours in 2005. It was suggested that binge drinking was fuelled by the desire to drink as much as possible by 11pm closing time and with a more relaxed approach, it was hoped that we, the public, would develop a 'cafe culture' to alcohol consumption. Suprise, surprise, it hasn't happened!

Perhaps the real reasoning was to top up the treasury coffers?

Last week showed what appeared to be conflicting reports: The Beer and Pub Association stated that 2009 saw the sharpest decline in alcohol consumption across the board since 1948. This figure was based primarily on data supplied by HM Revenue and Customs, detailing the amount of alcohol sold by producers and importers into the UK market. The Institute of Alcohol Studies also show a decrease in alcohol consumption in recent years.

There were also reports of the increase in alcohol related deaths and hospital admissions. Professor Bellis, director of the North West Public Health Observatory, reporting "The English death toll from alcohol now exceeds 15,500 people every year. It is time to recognise that we are not a population of responsible drinkers with just a hand full of irresponsible individuals ruining it for others."

So it would appear that indeed, we do have a problem - but would a minimum price for alcohol units help on hinder the 'hidden victims' of alcohol dependence? For these hidden victims exist and most of us are totally unaware of them!

Part two will focus on the drinking habits of our nation and the increase in alcohol related (ill)health conditions and death and the financial cost involved.

I feel I must declare that while writing this post - I have been drinking alcohol. It is a fine thing when treated with respect. I am not saying I have never abused it!

Anna G.

Saturday, 21 August 2010

8 OUT OF 10 CATS

Surveys are great things! Pick the right group of people and you are almost guaranteed to get the required outcome. If you don't then it can be filed in the forgotten drawer.

The UK's Faculty of Public Health published the modified results of a survey yesterday entitled: Healthy Nudges - When the Public Wants Change and the Politicians Don't Know It. A summary can be found HERE and you can click onto the full survey at the bottom of the FPH page.

I have no problem with the content of the survey, but I do wonder about the make up of the participants. Yes, there appears to be a fair representation of social grades - but was there a fair representation of smokers and drinkers? If not, the outcome of the survey is skewed.

Furthermore, the classifications of social grades was devised decades ago and now fails to reflect how society has changed.

The sample size was 1,488 GB adults, yet this small sample of an estimated UK population of 61,792,000 in mid-2009 has been seen as large enough for FPH to declare that politicians don't know what the public wants.

If this survey had been a clinical trial it would stretch to four phases. Would it not have been fairer to perhaps conduct four surveys - ensuring a true representation of smokers and drinkers - and then done a meta-analysis on all?

As said, no problem with the outcomes of the survey, bar the opt-out system for organ donation - but I think it is rather bold of the FPH to suggest that the survey is a true representation of what the public thinks!

Cheers!

Thadeus.

Friday, 13 August 2010

BURGER, FRIES AND A STATIN PLEASE!

Mmmmmm! I finished work at 7pm, went into town and visited my favourite burger bar! I ordered double cheeseburger, fries and a coke! Yum! Yum! I eased my fat, middle aged frame between chair and table and tucked in!

I didn't really! I came home and had a healthy meal of chicken and salad and I ate it after easing my fat, middle aged frame into the comfort of my easy chair!

I do not know why I am overweight - no, why I am fat! I am not obese - I am fat! I am as fat as Professor Steve "Fattie" Field as so eloquently described here by Dr. No, and Fattie is my friend! I do not know him - but admire him as he tells it like it is!

I am sure he will be delighted - or will he? - by today's glad tidings reported here, there and everywhere that UK researchers have suggested that fast food outlets should consider handing out a statin to combat the effects of burger and fries and presumably any other "naughty foods!" Perhaps they might suggest gastric banding too when customers purchases their hundredth meal?

I am certain Big Pharma will be orgasmic and rubbing their hands with glee! They could not have dreamed it up themselves! Money, money, money!

But hang on! Is there not some concern regarding adverse events with statins? Pulse reports here that GPs are urged to use the lowest possible statin doses! Over the counter (OTC) statins here at 10mg doses are available at chemists. Add on a few (10mg doses?) at your local burger bar and if we get into this mindset of dosing after junk food - we could top up at home! The skies the limit!

Eat whatever we like - have a statin and Bobs your Uncle! Fat but fit! Healthy heart, less cases of oesophageal cancer - but maybe we might experience liver dysfunction, renal failure, cataracts or myopathy! Nah!

Burger bar - here I come!

Thadeus the fatfull.

Sunday, 8 August 2010

THE LIVERPOOL CARE PATHWAY

The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) was introduced in the late nineties by the Liverpool Marie Curie Hospice and the Royal Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust palliative care teams. It is an integrated care pathway; its aim is to better equip those who care for patients in the last hours or days of life with necessary skills and in doing so, enable a peaceful, pain free death.

The LCP Continuous Quality Improvement Programme incorporates the following aims:
  1. AIM To improve care of the dying in the last hours or days of life.
  2. KEY THEMES To improve the knowledge related to the process of dying. To improve the quality of care in the last hours or days of life.
  3. KEY SECTIONS Initial Assessment. Ongoing Assessment. Care after Death.
  4. KEY DOMAINS OF CARE Physical. Psychological. Social. Spiritual.
The aims are laudable and provide holistic care to those at the end of life, and I am certain that it offers a peaceful, pain free release to those in the process of dying. Originally developed for the care of cancer patients, it has since been adapted for patients with other terminal conditions. It is now used in hospitals, hospices, care homes and within the community.

But with all good things, it is open to abuse. Disquiet is in the air. Adrian J. Treloar, physician expressed concerns' in the BMJ here in 2008 and Ronald J. Clearkin here in May of this year. Prof. Peter Millard, Dr. Peter Hargreaves et al wrote to The Telegraph here in September last year.

The LCP is a tick box document despite Marie Curie's insistence that it is not. The following criteria must be met before commencing the LCP: the patient must be bed-bound, semi-comatose, only accepts sips of fluid and is unable to take tablets. I have read over and over again while researching that diagnosing dying is not always easy.

Prof. Millard et al raised the following points in their letter:
"Forecasting death is an inexact science."

"If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death."

"... the diagnosis could be wrong."

"It is disturbing that in the year 2007-2008, 16.5 per cent of deaths came about after terminal sedation.

Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped "dying" patients get better."

Please note: The total number of people receiving continuous deep sedation is twice the rate of the Netherlands where there exist a culture of a casual approach to death and legalised euthanasia. At times, is the LCP euthanasia by the back door?

WHO IS PLACED ON THE LCP?
In 2009 a survey by the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool obtained details of almost 4000 treated on the scheme in 2008 and found:

The average age was 81 and they were typically on the pathway for 33 hours.
39% suffered from cancer, while others had conditions such as stroke, organ failure, pneumonia and dementia.

More than a third were given sedatives and four out of five did not need intravenous meds or fluids - or had them withdrawn,

28% of relatives were not informed that their loved one was on the pathway.

However, this survey found the implementation of the pathway encouraging, highlighting only that information - or the lack of it - given to relatives needs addressing.

CONCERNS REGARDING THE INEXACT SCIENCE OF FORCASTING DEATH
Please read the following two articles: one two . There are several more stories on timesonline but unfortunately they won't 'save.'

When our residents are admitted to hospital, it is mostly with a diagnosis of pneumonia. As said in my first post on Anticipatory Care Planning - forecasting who will placed on the LCP is almost an exact science in my work place! Will they end up on the LCP or won't they? It depends very much on the support system of relatives; if your relatives are strong and will fight for you - it is doubtful that you will end up on the pathway; if your relatives are compliant and open to suggestion or you have no NOK - the odds are you will be placed on the pathway; if you have behavioural/management problems - you will be sedated and thus will cease eating and drinking and will be placed on the pathway; if you can't feed yourself and have no strong support from relatives - you're screwed!

If any of the aforementioned applies and you are young - the odds are you won't be placed on the pathway. Being old definitely works against you.

Prof. Peter Millard has said: "The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time."

The problem with the LCP is that it focuses on the initial decision as to whether the patient is thought to be dying. If the answer is "Yes" then the entire process becomes automatic. "How can we make you comfortable?" has become "This is how we will treat you while you die." It is an ethical shift.

When used as it should be - and hopefully this is most of the time - the LCP is a fine, wonderful thing. But I fear it has become tainted.
Anna G




Friday, 23 July 2010

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interests


The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales) is a framework to empower and protect people who through established lack of mental capacity are unable at times, to make some decisions about themselves.

In this post I will consider major decisions relating to health care treatment.

I would recommend you visit http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/mca/mca.htm which provides a comprehensive, easily read and understood view of the act.

All the residents in my workplace have care plans covering The Mental Capacity Act and where needed, care plans covering Best Interests. These are evaluated monthly and reviewed half yearly,

However, we have been requested by our local PCT to assess the residents again, its purpose purely that of Anticipatory Care Planning and - as it appears to us - its desired goal that every resident will have an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment in place.

The following principles are covered in The Mental Capacity Act 2005:

  1. A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity.
  2. A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him do so have been taken without success.
  3. A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.
  4. An act done, or the decision is made, under the Act on or behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests.
  5. Before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had as to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person's rights and freedom of action.

The test of capacity looks at whether the person has an impairment of the mind or brain, or if there is some sort of disturbance affecting the way their mind or brain works. Whether this impairment of disturbance is temporary or permanent does not matter. It is whether the impairment of mind or brain means that the person is unable to make the decision in question at the time it needs to be made.

The functional test looks at whether the resident can:

  1. Understand information about the decision to be made.
  2. Retain the information in their mind,
  3. Use or weigh that information as part of their decision-making process.
  4. Communicate their decision (by talking, using sign language or any other means.

I work in a mental health environment, so do not pretend to understand how Anticipatory Care Planning is viewed in a general nursing setting. I can only express views on what I know.

Our residents are a mix of age related dementia's, alcohol related dementia's, acquired brain injuries, organic brain syndromes and enduring mental health problems. The ages of some of our residents would frighten you! You do not have to be old to live in nursing/residential care!

I worry that these vulnerable folk are being gently pushed into making a decision that may result in an untimely death and that it is purely a cost saving/hospital bed freeing exercise.

Consider (3) of the principles of the MCA - a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision. If a decision can only be one of "Yes, I will sign up to a ADRT" or "No! I won't!" - which is the unwise decision?

Consider sweet little Ethel who happily signs her own death warrant - just to please! She has not considered death, but has succumbed to suggestions that she does not want to die in pain or become a burden on her family; but she really doesn't want to die and has no idea of the ramifications of the document she has just signed.

Consider Fred who has an acquired brain injury with resulting dysthymia. Fred often states that he wishes he was dead - but there is no suicidal ideation. On the day he signs up to an ADRT he certainly does have mental capacity - but he is depressed; due to his depression we come back to principle (3) - is it a wise or unwise decision. Would he make the same decision tomorrow if he is not depressed?

The permutations of why decision making is wrong - if making a decision in a vacuum - are endless!

The Mental Capacity Act came into force to protect the vulnerable - not to be used as a tool to engage the vulnerable into signing their own death warrants!

The next post will look at the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Anna G.


Saturday, 10 July 2010

ANTICIPATORY CARE PLANNING (PART TWO) or

'How people die remains in the memory of those who live on.'
Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the Modern Hospice Movement.

Part two considers aspects of the content of The Department of Healths End of Life Care Strategy. It is far too lengthy a document to condense down all the information in it, therefore I have selected points which I consider salient.

I would recommend you read it in its entirety and you will need to download End of Life Care Strategy (PDF, 781K) at http://www.dh.gov.uk/

Personal observations are written in red.

End of Life Care Strategy.

Chapter 1: The challenge of end of life care.

1.29 The main aims of the NHS End of Life Care Programme were:


  • To encourage local adoption and development of end of life care models to address the needs of the local population, in particularly the Gold Standard Framework (GSF), Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) and Preferred Priorities for Care (PPC) see chapters 3 and 4; and
  • To encourage Care Homes in improving end of life care. though adaptions of these models (see chapter4).
The NHS End of Life Care Programme has exceeded its aims in every setting. However coverage levels for January 2008 shows much more needs to be done.

The above it itself appears laudable; an opportunity to plan future care at end of life - but it worries the hell out of me and why will become clear in this and future posts.

Chapter 3: The end of life care pathway.

Trajectories of decline at the end of life.

3.3


  • Some people with long term health conditions remain in reasonably good health until shortly before their death, with a steep decline in the last few weeks or months of life. Others will experience a more gradual decline, interspersed with episode of acute ill health from which they may, or may not recover. A third group are very frail for months or years before death, with a steady progressive decline.
3.4
  • These three patterns or trajectories are illustrated in Figure 1. Some authors have suggested that the first pattern may be typical of cancer, the second may be typical for people with organ failure (e.g. those with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and the third may be typical for people with dementia.
Now this is where I become more worried. I am thinking especially of groups two and three who have an ADRT in place.
Group two who experience 'episodes of acute ill health from which they may, or may not recover.' This statement implies that life or death outcomes may be very much dependent on severity and treatment. ADRT in place - no treatment = death! No chance to recover!
Group three: little gran with a RTI and in difficulty, but could recover. ADRT in place - no treatment = death! Dementia comes in many forms and consider X who is forty-nine and has pre-senile dementia. Consider Y who has another form of dementia and is thirty-six, and whose condition will remain stable for the rest of his/her natural lifespan. Both have a moderate amount of memory loss and associated apathy - but continue to operate at a level where their life still has obvious quality. Whatever condition they may present with in the future - I am not talking end-stage illness here - requiring treatment to sustain life; they will be denied it if an ADRT is in place. They will have signed their own death warrants.
Rant over! I did intend to write more - but I think this is enough.
Part three will cover Mental Capacity and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Anna G.

Thursday, 8 July 2010

Just to let you know!

I think that before I continue with my posts re Anticipatory Care Planning, I should declare that I am not anti-GP/doctor, as it might appear at times that I am.

Care homes receive a bad press and according to the CQC, this is well deserved in an estimated twenty-five percent of all homes. This figure is of course shocking! I would urge any GP who has concerns re the care in care homes to first approach the manager and discuss their fears, and if they feel this has had no effect, to report concerns to the CQC.

The only way we can effect change is to speak out!

Possibly, because all care homes appear to be regarded as profit led hell-holes where the elderly are left to stew in their own body fluids, many GPs take a dim view of us and present with an antagonistic approach to staff.

I also believe that some GPs do not really understand the reality of living with dementia, and how it affects the sufferer and those around them. Twenty-fours hours is a big difference from a practice consultation or a home visit. Care homes have many residents, all with their own idiosyncratic presentations. I am sure at times that even in excellent homes - when conflict occurs between residents (which sometimes happens), visitors may perceive this as lack of care.
The only way to prevent this is to drug the residents up to the eye-balls or somehow restrain them in a chair!

My home is served by several GP practices. Most regard us with disdain and a few of these GPs are so skilled they can diagnose from a doorway! See a patient with 'management problems' - doorway diagnosis! The other GPs are excellent and we work together for the benefit of the resident. If we lack knowledge of a particular condition - we can ask for information without embarrassment, and they will kindly educate us.

The OOH GPs are to be commended for their approach to the the residents and their willingness to listen to staff. No complaints here, but this has not always been the case. This change may be due to the unfortunate incident re Dr. Ubani - but I do not know for certain.

Please GPs, realise that care homes do not have an in-house doctor; nor do we nurses profess to have a doctors knowledge base. We need your help, and more importantly, so do our residents.

It is sadly the case in some instances, that nurses are regarded as non-entities by some GPs. A doctor friend once said to me: "Anyone on a pedestal in medicine shouldn't be in medicine, and I think we need to get back to appreciating one another and enjoying our interaction with patients."

Nothing more need be said!

AG.

Sunday, 4 July 2010

ANTICIPATORY CARE PLANNING (PART ONE) or....

FIRST THEY WOULDN'T COME FOR THE ELDERLY,
BUT I DID NOTHING BECAUSE I WASN'T ELDERLY.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the period of life expectancy at birth was around 48.5 for males and 50.4 for females.

The period of life expectancy at birth in the United Kingdom, as per the United Nations (2005-2010) is now 77.2 years for males and 81.6 years for females.

With advances in medicine and a resulting reduction in infant mortality; availability of treatment; better diets and decreased poverty - people are living longer.

According to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ there were 20 million people aged fifty and over in the UK in 2003. This was a 45% increase from 13.8 million in 1951. The projected increase by 2031 is a further 36%, with an estimated 27.2 million aged fifty and over.

An aging population equals a higher propensity to long term medical conditions - many of whom don't realise that some of these conditions are terminal. However - again according to government statistics - consider themselves to be in good health, even if they have a long term illness that restricts their daily activities.

Unfortunately, an aging population is regarded as a burden on the state. Despite the fact that they contributed to the system - they were not expected to live so long, and therefore - to take so much out of it.

It has therefore become necessary to initiate culling strategies. First there came the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) - which I am sure was formulated with the best on intentions (and I will blog about it on a later date) - and now there is the push towards Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment (ADRT). As stated - both devised with the best of intentions - but both are wide open to abuse.

A number of my colleagues recently attended a PCT meeting re Care Planning at the End of Life. Its secondary title was "Anticipatory Care Planning in Care Homes." Its prime aim is to enforce as a requirement, the implementation of ADRT.

" ************* Care Homes Project.

The....................................................................................................education.

The project has three main strands:
  1. Link GPs - the development of a Link GP role whereby a dedicated GP is contracted to work with each participating care home. The role is to support the care home in the implementation of clinical policies and procedures and to support and encourage the home to adopt clinical guidelines that are discussed during educational sessions
  2. Educational Programme - eight sessions over the course of twelve months, designed for care home staff and the Link GPs. The meetings will include anticipatory care planning, end of life care, falls and osteoporosis, COPD, chest infections, UTIs, nutrition and wound care.
  3. Anticipatory Care Planning - Link GPs will work with patients in care homes to develop anticipatory care plans in association with their families and care home staff."
The above may appear quite a breakthrough - GPs actually wanting to work with care homes (!) - but it is not!

The whole affair is quite scary and we fear that it is a further nail in the coffins of the elderly. When we first had experience of the LCP - we thought it a wonderful, caring thing that enabled the dying a pain free release. Now we can state (with an almost 95% degree of certainty) which residents admitted to hospital (GP initiation) with a RTI, will return home to us and who will be placed on the LCP! This knowledge is not based on the fact that we know that resident A is sicker than resident B; it is dependant on the support system of their NOK primarily and other known factors.

More to follow.......

Anna G.

Friday, 2 July 2010

SANITY RETURNS! DOCTORS AND NURSES TO TAKE CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL!

The Telegraph on line reports that Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester is to put doctors and nurses in charge of running the hospital!

The twenty-six departments are to be replaced by nine new ones. All new departments will have a medical consultant at the helm, supported by a nurse and a manager. The consultants will spend 80% of their time on medical duties and the remaining 20% running the department.

The University Hospital of South Manchester Trust has agreed a contract with Manchester Business School to provide the necessary management training for the docs.

Brilliant news and it appears that our coalition government are living up to their promises in "empowering professionals to deliver better outcomes for patients."

For the full story see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7868571/Trailblazing-hospital-to-put-medics-in-charge.html

Anna G.

Friday, 18 June 2010

TREES ARE LUSH AND GREEN!!!

Trees Trees Trees

Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees



I often ponder on what it would be like to exist as another living thing.
I must admit to being fascinated in and in awe of trees. They are
magnificent and diverse in their architectural splendour. Skeletal and
naked - except for evergreens of course - in winter and lush and green
in summer. In summer I can lie beneath their lush green canopy and
observe their ever changing form as they rustle and chatter when
caressed by a breeze.

If this life of ours is just a temporary experience of an eternity of
experiences and we are indeed reincarnated - I would like to come back
as a tree. I do wonder if they are sentient and that we are just too damned
arrogant to accept this as there is not an observable brain. If I return as
a tree I will endeavour to make contact with humans if I should discover
that I am sentient. If not, I will have made a big mistake - but of course I
will be totally unaware of it!



Ode to a tree.

In winter
as I lie warm in my bed,
you stand outside my window.
A stark silhouette,
naked and cold,
and as the north winds
make you shiver,
you tap, tap on my window
as if in entreaty,
but I won't let you in!

When I wake in the morning
you are iced in a half blanket of snow
and look magnificent.

In spring you stand in the dirty world
in which new life begins.
Your many arms are outstretched
as you emerge from your winter torment,
and you breathe in the richness
and begin to bud.
Two wood pigeons
that utilise you as a home
move back,
and remembering their favourite branch -
roost there, preening and cooing.

Come summer your lush
green canopy shades the world beneath you.
You are a welcome shelter for a myriad
of insects and birds claim you as territory.
I lie under your protection for hours on end,
in awe of your greenery
and watch your ever changing shape
as a breeze says "Hello!"

Nature is wonderful although I
accept cruelty is part of it.
But you are not cruel.
A carbon sequester and oxygen giver.

Come autumn you are seasonally affected
and in your sadness
you begin to fade and shed your now
brown and gold coat.
If the wind is quiet your leaves
drift aimlessly to the good earth below.
If angry, your leaves fly in the wind before
landing and scurry along the ground
as if in some frantic race.

Soon you will be tap, tapping on my window,
but I won't let you in!







Thadeus the thoughtful.