Tuesday, 4 December 2012

Liverpool Care Pathway – Trust, Anti-Trust

Norman Lamb is pacing ahead with his 'independent review'. At present he is seeking a (independent?) chair person.

This is Hansard -

Norman Lamb: I hope to announce the chair for the independent review of the use and experience of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) very shortly.
The review will draw together the work of the National End of Life Care Programme, the Association for Palliative Medicine and Dying Matters which are each investigating different aspects of the LCP. Patients, families and patient groups are already contributing to Dying Matters's 
3 Dec 2012 : Column 639W
user engagement work on LCP. The National End of Life Care Programme is undertaking a review of hospital complaints relating to integrated care pathways for end of life care and has commissioned a literature review from Nottingham university. The APM will run a survey of health professionals to explore their experience and views of integrated care pathways including the LCP.
Patients, patient representatives groups and other stakeholders will be able to submit evidence to the independent chair directly.

This most pertinent comment was posted on the LCP FACEBOOK GROUPS page with an accompanying link to They Work For You -

"So the "independent" chair has not yet been appointed according to Mr Lamb. Meanwhile, 3 organisations with major bias on this matter are reviewing different aspects of the LCP. Hmmm. Why would you let these investigations be carried out by organisations who have a vested interest in the use of end-of-life pathways! Oh, I see the additional comment "Patients, patient representatives groups and other stakeholders will be able to submit evidence to the independent chair directly" ... Sadly, I've seen it all before with my own past health issues and the controversy over treatment for a particular illness I contracted - there were conflicting views on treatment and patients and doctors were outraged - an Attorney General held an antitrust investigation which uncovered flaws with the current documention, major financial interests and conflicts of interest - the organisation involved had no choice but to announce a review of their existing guidelines. Although there were "independent" members on the review panel (later found to have their own interests on the findings, so not independent at all) and patients and doctors were allowed to give evidence etc, there were again, vested interests and with members of their own board sitting on the investigative panel, enabled them to find in favour of their own guidelines."
It is better to trust on the side of caution than to cast belief to the wind.

1 comment:

  1. Mr Lamb, you must give the people a just, independent Inquiry. As Baroness Knight has said, nothing less will do. The fundamental requirement for independence and justice means that those with vested interests in end of life care cannot possibly be allowed to review their own work and their own vested interests or to sit in judgement on themselves. In your heart you know that, don't you Mr Lamb?