ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5526-1078
Current Organisation
The University of Edinburgh
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Royal College of General Practitioners
Date: 08-2013
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-08-2015
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 02-05-2014
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 28-05-2014
DOI: 10.1136/BMJSPCARE-2013-000639
Abstract: Multimorbidity is increasingly common in the last year of life, and associated with frequent hospital admissions. The epidemiology is well described, but patient perspectives are less understood. We report the experiences and perceptions of people with advanced multimorbidity to inform improvements in palliative and end-of-life care. Multicentre study including serial, multiperspective interviews with patients and their family carers an interpretive analysis of experiences and understanding of living with advanced multimorbidity. We recruited patients and their family carers using established UK clinical guidance for the identification of people anticipated to be in their last year of life. An acute admissions unit in a Scottish regional hospital a large English general practice a London respiratory outpatient clinic. We analysed 87 interviews with 37 patients and 17 carers. They struggled with multiple changing medications, multiple services better aligned with single conditions such as cancer, and a lack of coordination and continuity of care. Family carers spoke of physical, mental and emotional exhaustion and feeling undervalued by professionals. Patients and carers frequently saw deteriorating health as part of 'growing old'. Many used a 'day-to-day' approach to self-management that hindered engagement with advance care planning and open discussions about future care. 'Palliative care' and 'dying soon' were closely related concepts for many patients, carers and professionals, so rarely discussed. Patients with advanced multimorbidity received less care than their illness burden would appear to merit. Some people did restrict their interactions with care providers to preserve autonomy, but many had a limited understanding of their multiple conditions, medications and available services, and found accessing support impersonal and challenging. Greater awareness of the needs associated with advanced multimorbidity and the coping strategies adopted by these patients and carers is necessary, together with more straightforward access to appropriate care.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 28-04-2018
Abstract: Population ageing will lead to more deaths with an uncertain trajectory. Identifying patients at risk of dying could facilitate more effective care planning. To determine whether screening for likely death within 12 months is more effective using screening tools or intuition. Randomised controlled trial of screening tools (Surprise Question plus the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for Surprise Question positive patients) to predict those at risk of death at 12 months compared with unguided intuition (clinical trials registry: ACTRN12613000266763). Australian general practice. A total of 30 general practitioners (screening tool = 12, intuition = 18) screened all patients ( n = 4365) aged ≥70 years seen at least once in the last 2 years. There were 142 deaths (screening tool = 3.1%, intuition = 3.3% p = 0.79). General practitioners identified more at risk of dying using Surprise Question (11.8%) than intuition (5.4% p = 0.01), but no difference with Surprise Question positive then Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (5.1% p = 0.87). Surprise Question positive predicted more deaths (53.2%, intuition = 33.7% p = 0.001), but Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool predictions were similar (5.1% p = 0.87 vs intuition). There was no difference in proportions correctly predicted to die (Surprise Question = 1.6%, intuition = 1.1% p = 0.156 and Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool = 1.1% p = 0.86 vs intuition). Screening tool had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than intuition, but no difference in positive or negative predictive value. Screening tool was better at predicting actual death than intuition, but with a higher false positive rate. Both were similarly effective at screening the whole cohort for death. Screening for possible death is not the best option for initiating end-of-life planning: recognising increased burden of illness might be a better trigger.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Kirsty Boyd.