Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: In our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most significant challenges is to assess the right moment to start anticipatory palliative care. The "Surprise Question" (SQ1: "Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months"?), if answered with "no", is an easy tool to apply in identifying patients in need of palliative care. However, this tool has a low specificity. Therefore, the aim of our pilot study was to determine if adding a second, more specific "Surprise Question" (SQ2: "Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months"?) in case SQ1 is answered in the negative, prompts GPs to plan for anticipatory palliative care.By randomization, 28 GPs in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands were allocated to three different groups. They all received a questionnaire with four vignettes, respectively representing patients with advanced organ failure (A), end stage cancer (B), frailty (C), and recently diagnosed cancer (D). GPs in the first group did not receive additional information, the second group received SQ1 after each vignette, and the third group received SQ1 and SQ2 after each vignette. We rated their answers based on essential components of palliative care (here called RADIANT score).GPs in group 3 gave higher RADIANT scores to those vignettes in which they would be surprised if the patients were still alive after 12 months. In all groups, vignette B had the highest mean RADIANT score, followed by vignettes A and C, and the lowest on vignette D. Seventy-one percent of GPs in groups 2 and 3 considered SQ1 a helpful tool, and 75% considered SQ2 helpful.This innovative pilot study indicates that the majority of GPs think SQ2 is a helpful additional tool. The combination of the two "Surprise Questions" encourages GPs to make more specific plans for anticipatory palliative care.
Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes.
<h4>Background</h4>In our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most significant challenges is to assess the right moment to start anticipatory palliative care. The "Surprise Question" (SQ1: "Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months"? ...[more]
Project description:BackgroundThe Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent.AimTo determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used.DesignA cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]-100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213.Setting/participantsRegistered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes.ResultsParticipants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53).ConclusionsThere is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted.
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about quality of life (QOL), depression, and end-of-life (EOL) outcomes among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.ObjectiveTo assess whether the surprise question identifies inpatients with advanced cancer likely to have unmet palliative care needs.DesignProspective cohort study and long-term follow-up.Setting/subjectsFrom 2008 to 2010, we enrolled 150 inpatients at Duke University with stage III/IV solid tumors or lymphoma/acute leukemia and whose physician would not be surprised if they died in less than one year.MeasurementsWe assessed QOL (FACT-G), mood (brief CES-D), and EOL outcomes.ResultsMean FACT-G score was quite low (66.9; SD 11). Forty-five patients (30%) had a brief CES-D score of ≥4 indicating a high likelihood of depression. In multivariate analyses, better QOL was associated with less depression (OR 0.91, p < 0.0001), controlling for tumor type, education, and spiritual well-being. Physicians correctly estimated death within one year in 101 (69%) cases, yet only 37 patients (25%) used hospice, and 4 (2.7%) received a palliative care consult; 89 (60.5%) had a do-not-resuscitate order, and 63 (43%) died in the hospital.ConclusionsThe surprise question identifies inpatients with advanced solid or hematologic cancers having poor QOL and frequent depressive symptoms. Although physicians expected death within a year, EOL quality outcomes were poor. Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer may benefit from palliative care interventions to improve mood, QOL, and EOL care, and the surprise question is a practical method to identify those with unmet needs.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine the hypothesis that surprising experiences of headache triggers are associated with daily headache activity. BACKGROUND:Little is known about the specific environmental or behavioral interactions that might trigger a headache attack in a prone individual. We propose that headache trigger exposures can be usefully characterized, not only by their mechanisms of action, but also on the degree of "surprise" they present to the individual. This hypothesis is based on elements of information theory: that unusual events and experiences carry more information than common events and experiences and that headache attacks are associated with reactions to uncommon or unexpected biopsychosocial exposures. METHODS:A secondary analysis of the Headache Prediction Study, this prospective cohort study followed N = 95 individuals with episodic migraine who contributed 4195 days of diary data. Information was collected on daily levels of several common headache triggers: number of caffeinated beverages, number of alcoholic beverages, stress (Daily Stress Inventory), and mood disturbance (Profile of Mood States). The probability of observing variations in each trigger was used to estimate the "surprisal" of experiencing each trigger, and this information, measured in bits, was used to predict headache attacks. RESULTS:Participants experienced a headache attack on 1613 of 4195 days (38.5%). Each of the triggers was modestly related to the probability of experiencing a future headache in a complex manner that involved interactions between current headache status, current levels of the trigger, and lagged (previous) levels of the trigger. However, when expressed as a surprisal, the associations were simplified and strengthened. For example, each of the individual trigger surprisals exhibited a meaningful association with the development of a future headache attack (expressed as a 1 SD change in surprisal), with odds ratios ranging from a low of 1.11 (95%CI: 1.00 to 1.24) for alcohol to a high of 1.30 (95%CI: 1.14 to 1.46) for stress. The individual surprisals could be summed for total trigger surprise and exhibited a reliable association with new onset headache, OR 1.35 (95%CI: 1.17 to 1.49). This score exhibited superior discrimination between headache and non-headache days from all of the individual triggers (ignoring base rate, AUC: 0.61; AUC: 0.71 with base rate). CONCLUSIONS:Diverse headache triggers can be uniformly described using their probability distributions. Rare values of headache triggers, or surprising values, were found to have consistent associations with headache activity across a variety of triggers. This finding, if validated in external data using other triggers, has potential to be used to conceptualize the influence of a wide range of headache triggers.
Project description:BackgroundThe Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12 months?") is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?") if the original Surprise Question is answered with "no." The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question.AimTo examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer.DesignA prospective study.ParticipantsTwelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients.ResultsIn group 1 (original Surprise Question "yes": surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question "no": not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question "no," additional Surprise Question "yes": surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) (p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b.ConclusionsThe Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care.
Project description:ObjectiveWe compared the performance of two tools to help general practitioners (GPs) identify patients in need of palliative care: the Surprise Question (SQ) and the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT).MethodsProspective cohort study in two general practices in the Netherlands with a size of 3640 patients. At the start of the study the GPs selected patients by heart using the SQ. The SPICT was translated into a digital search in electronic patient records. The GPs then selected patients from the list thus created. Afterwards the GPs were interviewed about their experiences. The following year a record was kept of all the patients deceased in both practices. We analysed the characteristics of the patients selected and the deceased. We calculated the performance characteristics concerning predicting 1-year mortality.ResultsThe sensitivity of the SQ was 50%, of the SPICT 57%; the specificity 99% and 98%. When analysing the deceased (n = 36), 10 died relatively suddenly and arguably could not be identified. Leaving out these 10, the sensitivity of the SQ became 69%, of the SPICT 81%. The GPs found the performance of the digital search quite time consuming.ConclusionThe SPICT seems to be better in identifying patients in need of palliative care than the SQ. It is also more time consuming than the SQ. However, as the digital search can be performed more easily after it has been done for the first time, initial investments can repay themselves.
Project description:BackgroundThe Surprise Question, 'Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?' is a simple tool that can be used by clinicians to identify people within the last year of life. This review aimed to determine the accuracy of this assessment, across different healthcare settings, specialties, follow-up periods and respondents.MethodsSearches were conducted of Medline, Embase, AMED, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until 01 January 2024. Studies were included if they reported original data on the ability of the Surprise Question to predict survival. For each study (including subgroups), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were determined.ResultsOur dataset comprised 56 distinct cohorts, including 68 829 patients. In a pooled analysis, the sensitivity of the Surprise Question was 0.69 ((0.64 to 0.74) I2=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I2=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I2=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I2=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I2=99.3%). The prompt performed best in populations with high event rates, shorter timeframes and when posed to more experienced respondents.ConclusionsThe Surprise Question demonstrated modest accuracy with considerable heterogeneity across the population to which it was applied and to whom it was posed. Prospective studies should test whether the prompt can facilitate timely access to palliative care services, as originally envisioned.Prospero registration numberCRD32022298236.
Project description:BackgroundPrognostic uncertainty is one barrier to engaging in goals-of-care discussions in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a tool to assist in prognostication. However, it has not been studied in non-dialysis-dependent CKD and its reliability is unknown.Study designObservational study.Setting & participants388 patients at least 60 years of age with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stages 4 to 5 who were seen at an outpatient nephrology clinic.PredictorTrinary (ie, Yes, Neutral, or No) and binary (Yes or No) surprise question response.OutcomesMortality, test-retest reliability, and blinded inter-rater reliability.MeasurementsBaseline comorbid conditions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cause of CKD, and baseline laboratory values (ie, serum creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum albumin, and hemoglobin).ResultsMedian patient age was 71 years with median follow-up of 1.4 years, during which time 52 (13%) patients died. Using the trinary surprise question, providers responded Yes, Neutral, and No for 202 (52%), 80 (21%), and 106 (27%) patients, respectively. About 5%, 15%, and 27% of Yes, Neutral, and No patients died, respectively (P<0.001). Trinary surprise question inter-rater reliability was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.72), and test-retest reliability was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72). The trinary surprise question No response had sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 76%, respectively (95% CIs, 38%-71% and 71%-80%, respectively). The binary surprise question had sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%; P=0.3 vs trinary), but lower specificity of 68% (95% CI, 63%-73%; P=0.02 vs trinary).LimitationsSingle center, small number of deaths.ConclusionsThe surprise question associates with mortality in CKD stages 4 to 5 and demonstrates moderate to good reliability. Future studies should examine how best to deploy the surprise question to facilitate advance care planning in advanced non-dialysis-dependent CKD.
Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with advanced non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) face a high risk of hospitalization and related adverse events.MethodsThis prospective cohort study followed nephrology clinic patients ≥60 years old with NDD-CKD stages 4-5. After an eligible patient's office visit, study staff asked the patient's provider to rate the patient's risk of death within the next year using the surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") with a 5-point Likert scale response (1, "definitely not surprised" to 5, "very surprised"). We used a statewide database to ascertain hospitalization during follow-up.ResultsThere were 488 patients (median age 72 years, 51% female, 17% black) with median estimated glomerular filtration rate 22 mL/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 2.1 years, the rates of hospitalization per 100 person-years in the respective response groups were 41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-50), "very surprised"; 65 (95% CI: 55-76), "surprised"; 98 (95% CI: 85-113), "neutral"; 125 (95% CI: 107-144), "not surprised"; and 120 (95% CI: 94-151), "definitely not surprised." In a fully adjusted cumulative probability ordinal regression model for proportion of follow-up time spent hospitalized, patients whose providers indicated that they would be "definitely not surprised" if they died spent a greater proportion of follow-up time hospitalized compared with those whose providers indicated that they would be "very surprised" (odds ratio 2.4, 95% CI: 1.0-5.7). There was a similar association for time to first hospitalization.ConclusionNephrology providers' responses to the surprise question for older patients with advanced NDD-CKD were independently associated with proportion of future time spent hospitalized and time to first hospitalization. Additional studies should examine how to use this information to provide patients with anticipatory guidance on their possible clinical trajectory and to target potentially preventable hospitalizations.
Project description:The Surprise Question "Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next 12 months?" lacks pediatric research, particularly in neonatal patients. Our study aims to analyze the Surprise Question's predictive ability in neonates and explore pediatricians' views on palliative care patient identification. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2021 to June 2023, including all newborns admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of a pediatric tertiary hospital and its pediatricians. Patients with less than a year since admission were excluded from final analyses. Recorded variables included patient demographics and condition, pediatricians' profile and opinions regarding the Surprise Question, and palliative care patient identification. The Surprise Question was formulated to one or more pediatricians per neonate at admission, 7 days of life, and 28 days of life, with patient status recorded after 12 months to elaborate a confusion matrix of prognostic test results. A total of 51 pediatricians participated. Most felt they had limited criteria for identifying palliative care patients (55%), believed the Surprise Question could be useful (77%), and predicted death (75%). The Surprise Question was answered at least in one out of the three moments for 262 neonates (61% male and at least 36% preterm), with sufficient sample at each moment to study its predictive ability. High negative predictive values were consistent, with higher positive predictive value at 7 days (26%).ConclusionsThe Surprise Question is a promising tool for predicting neonatal outcome and could guide professionals in initiating palliative care discussions. The 7-day mark appears more suitable for this application.What is known• Previous research has established the Surprise Question as a valuable tool for predicting death in adults. However, limited research exists on its use in pediatric patients and its role remains unexplored in the neonatal period.What is new• The study evaluates the Surprise Question as a tool for predicting death within the first year of life when applied in the neonatal period. It offers insights into its predictive ability and most suitable time for its application. This study sheds light on its applicability in neonatal care, offering a valuable tool for early identification and referral to palliative care.
Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often receive burdensome care at end-of-life (EOL) and infrequently complete advance care planning (ACP). The surprise question (SQ) is a prognostic tool that may facilitate ACP.ObjectiveTo assess how well the SQ predicts mortality and prompts ACP for COPD patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SubjectsPatients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of COPD between July 2015 and September 2018.Main measuresEmergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians answered, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days (ED)/one year (inpatient)?" The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the SQ in predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality. The secondary outcome was the correlation between SQ and ACP (palliative care consultation, documented goals-of-care conversation, change in code status, or completion of ACP document).Key resultsThe 30-day SQ had a high specificity but low sensitivity for predicting 30-day mortality: sensitivity 12%, specificity 95%, PPV 11%, and NPV 96%. The 1-year SQ demonstrated better accuracy for predicting 1-year mortality: sensitivity 47%, specificity 75%, PPV 35%, and NPV 83%. After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, and prior 6-month admissions, 1-year SQ+ responses were associated with greater odds of 1-year mortality (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.39-4.08) versus SQ-. One-year SQ+ patients were more likely to have a goals-of-care conversation (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.01) and complete an advance directive or POLST (46% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, SQ+ responses to the 1-year SQ were associated with greater odds of ACP receipt (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.64-4.36).ConclusionsThe 1-year surprise question may be an effective component of prognostication and advance care planning for COPD patients in the inpatient setting.
