English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We explore how and why the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for the dying patient was transferred to 20 countries beyond the UK, and with what consequences for policy and practice. Our paper synthesises findings from 95 publications contained in a historical narrative literature review on the implementation of the LCP outside the United Kingdom, alongside data from 18 qualitative interviews with 19 key actors involved with the LCP in 14 countries. We use the review to explore the timelines and patterns of development and implementation in the specific countries, to consider what forms of research and evaluation about the LCP were undertaken to establish its effectiveness, and to summarise the resulting findings and their consequences. We use the interviews to gain insights into the elements, processes and dynamics that shaped the transfer and translation of the LCP from one location to another, across national boundaries. Using six questions from the policy transfer literature we then explain who were the key actors involved; what was transferred; from where lessons were drawn; the different degrees of transfer that took place; what restricted or facilitated transfer; and how transfer was related to ‘success’ or ‘failure’. We conclude that the spread of the LCP took place mostly in prosperous countries, and was sustained over around 15 years.  It took in differing geographies and cultures, and a variety of linguistic, policy and practice contexts. If it did not succeed in a wider transformational goal, it appears to have been well received and perceived as beneficial in many contexts, largely avoiding accusations of mis-use and harm that had occurred in the UK, and in some cases fostering a sustained international collaboration and ongoing use of local variants, even after withdrawal in its country of origin in 2014.

International transfer and translation of an end of life care intervention: the case of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient