Prognostic value of the Surprise Question for one-year mortality in older patients: a prospective multicenter study in acute geriatric and cardiology units

"More Areas of Grey": Ambiguities in Neuropalliative Care

Neuropalliative care as a clinical speciality aims to address the unique end-of-life needs and concerns of patients with neurologic disease. Although literature has outlined clinical hurdles, a more nuanced understanding of how neuropalliative care was experienced, conceptualized, and enacted could provide context and depth to better outline practice and research priorities. This article presents findings from an ethnographic study of neuropalliative care conducted in a university-affiliated, tertiary care neurological hospital in Canada with a dedicated neuropalliative consultation service. Specifically, this article examines how clinical hurdles outlined in the neuropalliative literature were experienced and addressed by multiple stakeholders, including patients, families, and clinicians. These clinical hurdles include locating the scope of neuropalliative care, ascertaining the impact of prognostic uncertainty and poor recognition of the dying patient, and navigating the tensions between curative and palliative philosophies. In the discussion, the implications of these clinical hurdles are addressed, concluding with reflections on the role of ethnography, palliative care in the context of functional changes, and broadening approaches to uncertainty.

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

Searches 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.

RESULTS

Our 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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 NUMBER

CRD32022298236.

Will-to-Live and Self-Rated Health in Older Hospitalized Patients Are Not Predictive for Short-Term Mortality

Background: Self-assessed will-to-live and self-rated health are associated with long-term survival in community-dwelling older persons but have not been examined in frailer older patients in relation to short-term prognosis. The aim was to explore whether will-to-live and self-rated health are predictive for six-month mortality and can guide ceiling of treatment decisions in hospitalized patients in an acute geriatric ward. We included the Surprise Question as reference, being a well-established clinical tool for short-term prognostication. Methods: This multicentric prospective study included patients of 75 years and older admitted at acute geriatric wards of two Belgian hospitals. Will-to-live and self-rated health were scored on a Likert scale (0-5, 0-4) and assessed by junior geriatricians. The senior geriatricians answered the Surprise Question for clinical judgment of prognosis. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to determine diagnostic accuracy. For time-dependent analysis, Cox regression was performed with adjustment for age and gender. Results: Of 93 included patients in the study, 69 were still alive after six months and 24 died, resulting in a six-month mortality of 26%. The mean age was 86 years (range 75-100), 67% of the patients were women. Median will-to-live and self-rated health were 3 (moderate and good). Both will-to-live and self-rated health were not predictive for six-month mortality (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.496, p = 0.951 for will-to-live; 0.447, p = 0.442 for self-rated health) as opposed to Surprise Question (AUC 0.793, p < 0.001). After correction for sex and age, the hazard ratio of six-month mortality was 0.92 for will-to-live (p = 0.667), 0.86 for self-rated health (p = 0.548), and 10.28 for Surprise Question (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Will-to-live and self-rated health are not predictive for six-month mortality in patients admitted to the acute geriatric ward, unlike prognostic tools such as Surprise Question. Clinical Trial Registration Number: B670202100792.

The utility of the surprise question: A useful tool for identifying patients nearing the last phase of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The surprise question is widely used to identify patients nearing the last phase of life. Potential differences in accuracy between timeframe, patient subgroups and type of healthcare professionals answering the surprise question have been suggested. Recent studies might give new insights.

AIM

To determine the accuracy of the surprise question in predicting death, differentiating by timeframe, patient subgroup and by type of healthcare professional.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception till 22nd January 2021. Studies were eligible if they used the surprise question prospectively and assessed mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and c-statistic were calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including 88.268 assessments. The meta-analysis resulted in an estimated sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI [66.3-76.4]) and specificity of 74.0% (95% CI [69.3-78.6]). The negative predictive value varied from 98.0% (95% CI [97.7-98.3]) to 88.6% (95% CI [87.1-90.0]) with a mortality rate of 5% and 25% respectively. The positive predictive value varied from 12.6% (95% CI [11.0-14.2]) with a mortality rate of 5% to 47.8% (95% CI [44.2-51.3]) with a mortality rate of 25%. Seven studies provided detailed information on different healthcare professionals answering the surprise question.

CONCLUSION

We found overall reasonable test characteristics for the surprise question. Additionally, this study showed notable differences in performance within patient subgroups. However, we did not find an indication of notable differences between timeframe and healthcare professionals.