Hi Dominic please follow me so that i can send you my details and we can chat
Absolutely. I appreciate that. My question is more to do which cases you include for review - and specifically why you choose to exclude those placed on the death pathway.
-
-
1 Unexpected death 2 Family unhappy or has concerns 3 Death which should be referred to
#Coroner and any one has any concerns This is my personal view@martinfarrier is an expert -
Ok, thanks Umesh. Wonder if
@martinfarrier will have any thoughts on this question? The point was discussed at CQC's board meeting just 10m15s into the video >https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fxh95M_85PM … -
Unexpected death should = a death where anticipatory care is not given. That’s really the deaths we review.
-
Appreciated. My concern was the inclusion of those put on the death pathway as a separate category. If they were not admitted to die & not admitted to ICU, I just thought any such pt then put on the death pathway would be reason to investigate death, not exclude. Is it just me..?
-
We did multiple months of “death pathway” reviews and found fewer errors. These deaths turned out to be the low risk deaths.
-
Interesting, thanks. What kind of volume of pts did this specific category involve? I can't imagine there should be too many who having not been admitted to die, or admitted to ICU, then subsequently find themselves on the death pathway?
-
Then you imagine wrong. Many ICU patients die on a pathway. There are plenty of the remaining group, not admitted to due, but path appr.
-
Really? So there's a notable volume of pts who don't arrive in hospital in a condition which would indicate that their death is imminent, but who then subsequently find themselves on the death pathway anyway? You're right, I did imagine wrong. I'm quite surprised by that.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.