PA6†Death chat: engaging with dying and death.

BACKGROUND: Talking about death continues to be a social taboo. St Christopher's has a large, welcoming social space, (The Anniversary Centre) and is committed to opening up its buildings in a number of ways. The St Christopher's social programme, of which Death Chat is part, aims to break down social taboos. AIMS: Hospices have a responsibility to engage creatively with patients, family members, carers and the wider community. Death Chat, held in the hospice buildings, enables honest discussion about dying and death and topics surrounding these themes. METHODS: Death Chat meets weekly and is an open meeting that takes a different subject each week as the starting point for conversation. Cheese and wine are shared and participants quickly find a place in the group. RESULTS: Death Chat has attracted patients, family members, bereaved relatives and the community since September 2013. Attendees have reflected that coming has broken taboos. Peter said, 'it's nowhere near as depressing as it sounds; it's a nice, friendly atmosphere - a convivial place.' Molly found Death Chat to be a welcoming, open and challenging space, 'I have learnt that death is more about my attitude to life than anything else. It has been by far the most important lesson I have learnt since dealing with bereavement.' CONCLUSION: Death Chat provides a forum in which discussion of dying and death for recognises that these are social events and reclaims them from being taboo, to being a normal part of life's experience.

OA11†Public health and hospices: what is really possible?

INTRODUCTION: Whilst a growing number of hospices are proactively engaging in the public health agenda, questions remain about whether this is an approach that hospices can adopt successfully. (Sallnow et al . 2014). The experience of St Christopher's in the development of its social hub (The Anniversary Centre) offers insights into the challenges and how these are best addressed. BACKGROUND: The Anniversary Centre was established to provide a more open and flexible approach to end of life care and to challenge and change public attitudes towards death and dying. It sought, also, to contest an existing culture of care, shifting from professional management of problems to one in which people take a lead in their own care and wellbeing. METHODS: A review of the progress of the Centre in achieving these aims has been undertaken five years after its establishment. Questions focus on: The degree to which the centre has engaged more of the local communities How much its users are able to determine their own priorities, care and wellbeing through attendance at the centre What evidence of a public health approach exists in the support it provides. RESULTS: The Centre offers a new and alternative way of supporting people living with a life threatening condition. Although successes have been achieved, organisational and historical cultural barriers continue to limit progress. CONCLUSION: Hospice culture can prohibit public health approaches to palliative care. However, related innovation is possible when clear values and stories are shared, champions are identified and professional assumptions are challenged. REFERENCE: Sallnow L, Paul S. Understanding community engagement in end-of-life care: developing conceptual clarity. Crit Public Health 2015;25(2):231-8.