Dataset Information

Timely identification of patients in need of palliative care using the Double Surprise Question: A prospective study on outpatients with cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Aim

To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer.

Design

A prospective study.

Participants

Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients.

Results

In 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Ermers DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7975860 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUNDIn 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.METHODSBy 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).RESULTSGPs 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.CONCLUSIONSThis 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Our healthcare system is moving towards patient-centered and value-based care models that prioritize health outcomes that matter to patients. However, little is known about what aspects of care patients would prioritize when presented with choices of desirable attributes and whether these patient priorities differ based on certain demographics. OBJECTIVE:To assess patients' priorities for a range of attributes in ambulatory care consultations across five key health service delivery domains and determine potential associations between patient priorities and certain demographic profiles. METHODS:Using a What Matters to You survey patients ranked in order of importance various choices related to five health service domains (patient-physician relationship, personal responsibility, test/procedures, medications, and cost). Subjects were selected from two Johns Hopkins affiliated primary care clinics and a third gastroenterology subspecialty clinic over a period of 11 months. We calculated the percentage of respondents who selected each quality as their top 1-3 choice. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined demographic characteristics associated with patient priorities. RESULTS:Humanistic qualities of physicians, leading a healthy lifestyle, shared decision making (SDM) for medications and tests/procedures as well as knowledge about insurance coverage were the most frequently ranked choices. Privately insured and more educated patients were less likely to rank humanistic qualities highly. Those with younger age, higher educational attainment and private insurance had higher odds of ranking healthy lifestyle as a top choice. Those with more education had higher odds of ranking SDM as a top choice. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying what matters most to patients is useful as we move towards patient-centered and Value Based Care Models. Our findings suggest that patients have priorities on qualities they value across key health service domains. Multiple factors including patient demographics can be predictors of these priorities. Elucidating these preferences is a challenging but a valuable step in the right direction.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate future palliative care need and complexity of need in Scotland, and to identify priorities for future service delivery.DesignWe estimated the prevalence of palliative care need by analysing the proportion of deaths from defined chronic progressive illnesses. We described linear projections up to 2040 using national death registry data and official mortality forecasts. An expert consultation and subsequent online consensus survey generated recommendations on meeting future palliative care need.SettingScotland, population of 5.4 million.ParticipantsAll decedents in Scotland over 11 years (2007 to 2017). The consultation had 34 participants; 24 completed the consensus survey.Primary and secondary outcomesEstimates of past and future palliative care need in Scotland from 2007 up to 2040. Multimorbidity was operationalised as two or more registered causes of death from different disease groups (cancer, organ failure, dementia, other). Consultation and survey data were analysed descriptively.ResultsWe project that by 2040, the number of people requiring palliative care will increase by at least 14%; and by 20% if we factor in multimorbidity. The number of people dying from multiple diseases associated with different disease groups is projected to increase from 27% of all deaths in 2017 to 43% by 2040. To address increased need and complexity, experts prioritised sustained investment in a national digital platform, roll-out of integrated electronic health and social care records; and approaches that remain person-centred.ConclusionsBy 2040 more people in Scotland are projected to die with palliative care needs, and the complexity of need will increase markedly. Service delivery models must adapt to serve growing demand and complexity associated with dying from multiple diseases from different disease groups. We need sustained investment in secure, accessible, integrated and person-centred health and social care digital systems, to improve care coordination and optimise palliative care for people across care settings.