An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question

Nicola White, Linda Jm Oostendorp, Victoria Vickerstaff, Christina Gerlach, Yvonne Engels, Maud Maessen, Christopher Tomlinson, Johan Wens, Bert Leysen, Guido Biasco, Sofia Zambrano, Steffen Eychmüller, Christina Avgerinou, Rabih Chattat, Giovanni Ottoboni, Carel Veldhoven, Patrick Stone, Nicola White, Linda Jm Oostendorp, Victoria Vickerstaff, Christina Gerlach, Yvonne Engels, Maud Maessen, Christopher Tomlinson, Johan Wens, Bert Leysen, Guido Biasco, Sofia Zambrano, Steffen Eychmüller, Christina Avgerinou, Rabih Chattat, Giovanni Ottoboni, Carel Veldhoven, Patrick Stone

Abstract

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: NCT03697213.

Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes.

Results: Participants 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).

Conclusions: There 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.

Keywords: Prognosis; palliative care; primary health care; survival.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Example vignette.

References

    1. Health Improvement Scotland. “Palliative care identification tool comparator.” The Improvement Hub (ihub) 2018.
    1. NHS England. NHS long term plan, (2019, accessed 30 March 2021).
    1. Henson L, Gao W, Higginson I, et al.. Emergency department attendance by patients with cancer in the last month of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015; 385: S41.
    1. Seow H, Brazil K, Sussman J, et al.. Impact of community based, specialist palliative care teams on hospitalisations and emergency department visits late in life and hospital deaths: a pooled analysis. BMJ 2014; 348: g3496.
    1. El-Jawahri A, Greer JA, Temel JS. Does palliative care improve outcomes for patients with incurable illness? A review of the evidence. J Support Oncol 2011; 9: 87–94.
    1. Higginson IJ, Evans CJ. What Is the evidence that palliative care teams improve outcomes for cancer patients and their families? Cancer J 2010; 16: 423–435.
    1. Hately J, Laurence V, Scott A, et al.. Breathlessness clinics within specialist palliative care settings can improve the quality of life and functional capacity of patients with lung cancer. Palliat Med 2003; 17: 410–417.
    1. Storey A. Living longer: how our population is changing and why it matters. Office for National Statistics: London, UK. 2018. Aug 13.
    1. Economic and Financial Affairs. The 2018 ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU member states (2016-2070). (2018, accessed 30 March 2021).
    1. Mitchell S, Loew J, Millington-Sanders C, et al.. Providing end-of-life care in general practice: findings of a national GP questionnaire survey. Br J Gen Pract 2016; 66: e647–e653.
    1. Maas EAT, Murray SA, Engels Y, et al.. What tools are available to identify patients with palliative care needs in primary care: a systematic literature review and survey of European practice. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2013; 3(4): 44–451.
    1. Abarshi E, Echteld M, Donker G, et al.. Discussing end-of-life issues in the last months of life: a nationwide study among general practitioners. J Palliat Med 2011; 14: 323–330.
    1. Department of Health and Social care. The End of Life Care Strategy. (2008, accessed 30 March 2021).
    1. Meier EA, Gallegos JV, Thomas LPM, et al.. Defining a good death (successful dying): literature review and a call for research and public dialogue. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr 2016; 24: 261–271.
    1. Forster LE, Lynn J. Predicting life span for applicants to inpatient hospice. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148(12): 2540–2543.
    1. White N, Kupeli N, Vickerstaff V, et al.. How accurate is the ‘Surprise Question’ at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2017; 15: 139.
    1. Aaronson EL, George N, Ouchi K, et al.. The Surprise Question can be used to identify heart failure patients in the emergency department who would benefit from palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag 2019; 57: 944–951.
    1. Gerlach C, Goebel S, Weber S, et al.. Space for intuition – the ‘Surprise’-question in haemato-oncology: qualitative analysis of experiences and perceptions of haemato-oncologists. Palliat Med 2019; 33(5): 531–540.
    1. Downar J, Goldman R, Pinto R, et al.. The “Surprise Question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2017; 189: E484–E493.
    1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al.. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 573–577.
    1. White N, Oostendorp L, Vickerstaff V, et al.. An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol. BMC Palliat Care 2019; 18: 36.
    1. Moroni M, Zocchi D, Bolognesi D, et al.. The ‘Surprise’ Question in advanced cancer patients: a prospective study among general practitioners. Palliat Med 2014; 28: 959–964.
    1. Kuliś D, Bottomley A, Velikova G, et al.. EORTC quality of life group translation procedure. 4th edition. (2017, accessed 31 October 2018).
    1. Thoonsen B, Gerritzen SH, Vissers KC, et al.. Training general practitioners contributes to the identification of palliative patients and to multidimensional care provision: secondary outcomes of an RCT. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2016; 9: e18.
    1. Gaertner J, Siemens W, Meerpohl JJ, et al.. Effect of specialist palliative care services on quality of life in adults with advanced incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2017; 357: j2925.
    1. Harrison N, Cavers D, Campbell C, et al.. Are UK primary care teams formally identifying patients for palliative care before they die? Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e344–e352.
    1. Ko W, Deliens L, Miccinesi G, et al.. Care provided and care setting transitions in the last three months of life of cancer patients: a nationwide monitoring study in four European countries. BMC Cancer 2014; 14: 960.
    1. De Nooijer K, Pivodic L, Deliens L, et al.. Primary palliative care for older people in three European countries: a mortality follow-back quality study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2019; 10(4): 462–468.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner