The 'surprise' question in advanced cancer patients: A prospective study among general practitioners (original) (raw)
Related papers
The oncologist, 2015
Predicting the short-term survival in cancer patients is an important issue for patients, family, and oncologists. Although the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question has value in 1-year mortality for cancer patients, the prognostic value for short-term survival has not been formally assessed. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic value of the surprise question for 7-day and 30-day survival in patients with advanced cancer. The present multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in Japan from September 2012 through April 2014, involving 16 palliative care units, 19 hospital-based palliative care teams, and 23 home-based palliative care services. We recruited 2,425 patients and included 2,361 for analysis: 912 from hospital-based palliative care teams, 895 from hospital palliative care units, and 554 from home-based palliative care services. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the 7-day sur...
2021
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), a...
BMC Medicine
Background: Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The 'Surprise Question' (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality. Results: A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6-80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7-86.3).
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2017
he surprise question (SQ) was developed more than a decade ago and has been suggested as a simple test to identify patients who might benefit from hospice and palliative care (HPC). 1 It involves a clinician reflecting on the question, "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?". It was thought that the SQ would correct for a physician's tendency to overestimate prognosis 2 by asking the physician to consider whether death in the coming year is possible rather than probable. The surprise question has been widely promoted 3,4 and adopted into frameworks for assessing hospice and palliative care needs. 5,6 In the past few years, several studies have reported on the accuracy of the SQ for a different purpose: as a prognostic test of intermediate-term death in different patient populations. These studies sought to determine whether an answer of "no" (hereafter SQ+) predicts intermediate-term death. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the performance characteristics of the SQ in predicting death and the methodologic characteristics of these studies. Methods Search strategy
Background: Life expectancy in recent decades has increased the prevalence of chronic diseases in the population, requiring an approach to new health topics, such as discussions on quality of life and expectations about death and dying. The concept of advance directives (ADs) gives individuals the opportunity to make known their decisions about the treatments they would like to receive at the end of life. Despite the recognition of relevance in clinical practice, the applicability of the concept presents challenges, including establishing the appropriate prognosis for each patient and the ideal time to approach the patient. Some prognostic tools were developed, such as the surprise question (SQ): “Would you be surprised if your patient died in 12 months?”, which is used in some clinical settings to predict patient deaths and to make decisions regarding advance directives (Ads). Method: In our one-year observational study, from July 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017, second-year resident...
BMC Medical Education
Background Life expectancy in recent decades has increased the prevalence of chronic diseases in the population, requiring an approach to new health topics, such as discussions on quality of life and expectations about death and dying. The concept of advance directives (ADs) gives individuals the opportunity to make known their decisions about the treatments they would like to receive at the end of life. Despite the recognition of relevance in clinical practice, the applicability of the concept presents challenges, including establishing the appropriate prognosis for each patient and the ideal time to approach the patient. Some prognostic tools were developed, such as the surprise question (SQ): “Would you be surprised if your patient died in 12 months?”, which is used in some clinical settings to predict patient deaths and to make decisions regarding ADs. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate the behavior of second-year resident physicians (PGY-2) when the SQ was ...
Palliative Medicine
Background: The 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. Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. Design: A 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:...
Usefulness of the Surprise Question on an Inpatient Oncology Service
The American journal of hospice & palliative care, 2018
Prognostication of survival in patients with advanced cancer has been challenging and contributes to poor illness understanding. Prognostic disagreement occurs even among providers and is a less studied phenomenon. We introduced the surprise question (SQ), "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 1 year, 6 months, and 1 month?," at multidisciplinary rounds to increase palliative care referrals through the introduction of this prognostic prompt. This quality improvement project took place from March 2016 to May 2016 on the medical oncology service at a tertiary academic medical center. The question was asked 3 times a week at multidisciplinary rounds which are attended by the hospital medicine provider, palliative care provider, and consulting oncologist. Primary oncologists and bedside nurses were also asked the SQ. Referral rates to outpatient palliative care clinic, community-based palliative care clinic, inpatient palliative care consults, and hospice 3 mo...
The ‘surprise’ question in paediatric palliative care: A prospective cohort study
Palliative Medicine, 2017
Background: The question ‘would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12-months’ is widely used for identifying adult patients in the last year of life. However, this has not yet been studied in children. Aim: To assess the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question when used by a multidisciplinary team to predict survival outcomes of children with life-limiting conditions over a 3 and 12 month period. Design: A prospective cohort study. Setting/participants: Six multidisciplinary team members working in a children’s hospice answered a 3 and 12 month surprise question about 327 children who were either newly referred or receiving care at the hospice between 2011 and 2013. Results: The prognostic accuracy of the multidisciplinary team for the 3 (and 12)month surprise question were: sensitivity 83.3% (83.3%), specificity 93.2% (70.7%), positive predictive value 41.7% (23.6%), negative predictive value 99% (97.5%) and accuracy 92.6% (71.9%). Patients with a ‘no’ response ...
Palliative medicine, 2017
Population ageing will lead to more deaths with an uncertain trajectory. Identifying patients at risk of dying could facilitate more effective care planning. To determine whether screening for likely death within 12 months is more effective using screening tools or intuition. Randomised controlled trial of screening tools (Surprise Question plus the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for Surprise Question positive patients) to predict those at risk of death at 12 months compared with unguided intuition (clinical trials registry: ACTRN12613000266763). Australian general practice. A total of 30 general practitioners (screening tool = 12, intuition = 18) screened all patients ( n = 4365) aged ≥70 years seen at least once in the last 2 years. There were 142 deaths (screening tool = 3.1%, intuition = 3.3%; p = 0.79). General practitioners identified more at risk of dying using Surprise Question (11.8%) than intuition (5.4%; p = 0.01), but no difference with Surprise Question ...