Early palliative care: the surprise question and the palliative care screening tool-better together

Palliative care screening tools and patient outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Palliative care (PC) refers to providing patients with physical, psychological, mental, and other care and humanistic care services in a multidisciplinary collaborative mode with end-of-stage patients and family members as the centre. The PC screening tool (PCST) was developed to identify individuals who may benefit from PC services and is widely assumed to improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose is to understand which specific PCST has been applied to clinical patients and to analyse and summarise the impact of using these tools on patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published on PCST was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and MEDLINE in January 2024. All original research articles on PCST fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included (1) utilisation and evaluation of tools was the primary objective and (2) at least one patient outcome was reported.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included, 12 studies used a prospective study, 4 studies used a non-RCT and 6 studies used an RCT. The studies were heterogeneous regarding study characteristics, especially patient outcomes. In total, 24 different patient outcomes were measured, of which 16 outcomes measured in 12 studies significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the majority of included studies reported that implementing PCST can improve patient outcomes to some extent, especially when used to improve in reducing hospitalisation time and patient readmission rate. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on this widely used screening tool.

Screening instruments for early identification of unmet palliative care needs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The early detection of individuals who require palliative care is essential for the timely initiation of palliative care services. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) Identify the screening instruments used by health professionals to promote early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care; and (2) Assess the psychometric properties and clinical performance of the instruments.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang from inception to May 2023. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments to assess the methodological quality of the development process for the instruments. The clinical performance of the instruments was assessed by narrative summary or meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted where necessary. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

We included 31 studies that involved seven instruments. Thirteen studies reported the development and validation process of these instruments and 18 studies related to assessment of clinical performance of these instruments. The content validity of the instruments was doubtful or inadequate because of very low to moderate quality evidence. The pooled sensitivity (Se) ranged from 60.0% to 73.8%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 88.15% to 99.36%). The pooled specificity (Sp) ranges from 70.4% to 90.2%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 96.81% to 99.94%). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) had better performance in hospitals than in general practice settings (Se=79.8% vs 45.3%, p=0.004; Sp=59.1% vs 97.0%, p=0.000).

CONCLUSION

The clinical performance of existing instruments in identifying patients with palliative care needs early ranged from poor to reasonable. The SPICT is used most commonly, has better clinical performance than other instruments but performs better in hospital settings than in general practice settings.

Timely integration of palliative care. the reality check. a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

A large volume of literature suggests that timely integration of palliative care (PC) enhances the well-being, quality of life and satisfaction of patients and their families. It may also positively impact clinical outcomes and healthcare costs throughout the disease trajectory. Therefore, reviewing clinical practice to reflect real-life situations regarding timely PC integration is essential.

METHODS

This study, conducted at the Vienna General Hospital between March 2016 and August 2022, retrospectively examined PC consultation (PCC) requests. It aimed to assess the timeliness of PC integration by analysing the duration between diagnosis and the first PCC request, as well as the interval between the first PCC request and death.

RESULTS

This study included 895 PCCs. The median time from diagnosis to the first PCC was 16.6 (interquartile range (IQR): 3.9-48.4) months, while the median time from the first PCC to death was 17.2 (IQR: 6.1-50.7) days. The median time from diagnosis to first PCC was 10.4 months in females (confidence interval (CI): 6.0-14.8) compared to 10.6 months in males (CI: 8.1-13.1; p = 0.675). There were no gender disparities in the time from first PCC to death, with a median of 23.3 days (CI: 15.6-31.0) for females and 22.3 days (CI: 16.2-28.4) for males (p  = 0.93). Fifty percent of patients died between 5 and 47 days after the first PCC.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the discrepancy between the clinical perception of PC as end-of-life care and the existing literature, thereby emphasising the importance of timely PC integration.

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.

Could it have been predicted? A retrospective analysis of the last year of life for people who died whilst in an intermediate care centre

Objectives

Intermediate care centres (ICCs) exist in the UK to bridge between acute hospital and home for those with rehabilitation needs. A national study shows 25% of ICC in-patients died within a year of admission. High quality end-of-life care includes early conversations with a person and their loved ones about what matters to them; timely identification of those who are likely to be nearing the end of their life is key.

Methods

This retrospective quantitative review of 98 patient notes reviewed deaths in one NHS trust, comparing 50 deaths in the acute hospital and 48 in the ICC. Data included frailty score, previous hospital admissions, specialist palliative input and conversations between professionals, patients and their loved ones. Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) scores were used to identify those likely to have a poor prognosis.

Results

Results showed statistically significant differences between the groups. The ICC cohort were older with higher clinical frailty scores. They were less likely to have previous hospital admissions but more likely to have poor prognostic features on final admission. Despite this, the possibility of deterioration was discussed them less frequently than the acute hospital cohort, and fewer saw the Palliative care team.

Conclusion

This data suggests support is needed in ICCs to recognise those likely to be nearing end-of-life. One challenge is patients are more likely to be seen as 'well' in a rehabilitation focused environment. This paper suggests a 'proactive approach' trial using SPICT for ongoing assessment of ICC in-patients supporting identification of a deteriorating person and avoid missed opportunities for key conversations.

Short-term and long-term survival in patients with prevalent haemodialysis-an integrated prognostic model: external validation

OBJECTIVES

Prognostic tools with evidence for external validity in routine clinical practice are needed to align care with patients' preferences and deliver timely supportive services. Current models have limited, if any, evidence for external validity and none have been implemented and evaluated in clinical practice on a large scale. This study sought to provide evidence for external validity in a real life setting of the Cohen prognostic model that integrates actuarial factors with the 'Surprise Question' to assess 6-month, 12-month and 18-month survival of prevalent haemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 1372 patients in a Canadian university-based programme between 2010 and 2019. Survival probabilities were compared with observed survival. Discrimination and calibration were assessed through predicted risk-stratified observed survival, cumulative AUC, Somer's Dxy and a calibration slope estimate.

RESULTS

Discrimination performance was moderate with a C statistic of 0.71-0.72 for all three time points. The model overpredicted mortality risk with the best predictive accuracy for 6- month survival. The differences between observed and mean predicted survival at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months were 3.2%, 8.8% and 12.9%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by Cox-based risk group showed good discrimination between high-risk and low-risk patients with HR estimates (95% CI): C2 vs C1 3.07 (1.57-5.99), C3 vs C1 5.85 (3.06-11.17), C4 vs C1 13.24 (6.91-25.34)).

CONCLUSIONS

The Cohen prognostic model can be incorporated easily into routine dialysis care to identify patients at high risk for death over 6 months, 12 months and 18 months and help target vulnerable patients for timely supportive care interventions.

Would you be surprised? Prospective multicenter study of the Surprise Question as a screening tool to predict mortality in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

The Surprise Question (SQ) ("Would I be surprised if the patient died within the next year?") is a validated tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. Because it may have potential to expedite palliative care interventions per American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practices Guidelines, we sought to determine if trauma team members could use the SQ to accurately predict 1-year mortality in trauma patients.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, cohort study collected data (August 2020 to February 2021) on trauma team members' responses to the SQ at 24 hours from admission. One-year mortality was obtained via social security death index records. Positive/negative predictive values and accuracy were calculated overall, by provider role and by patient age.

RESULTS

Ten Level I/II centers enrolled 1,172 patients (87.9% blunt). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 36-74 years), and the median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range, 5-14 years). Overall 1-year mortality was 13.3%. Positive predictive value was low (30.5%) regardless of role. Mortality prediction minimally improved as age increased (positive predictive value highest between 65 and 74 years old, 34.5%) but consistently trended to overprediction of death, even in younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Trauma team members' ability to forecast 1-year mortality using the SQ at 24 hours appears limited perhaps because of overestimation of injury effects, preinjury conditions, and/or team bias. This has implications for the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Guidelines and suggests that more research is needed to determine the optimal time to screen trauma patients with the SQ.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

The applicability of the "surprise question" as a prognostic tool in patients with severe chronic comorbidities in a university teaching outpatient setting

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 applied.

METHOD

In our observational study, from July 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017, (PGY-2) in the Internal Medicine Residency Program (IMRP) applied SQ to all patients with multiple and varied chronic no communicable comorbidities, who were followed up at the general medicine outpatient clinic (GMOC) of a tertiary university hospital in São Paulo- Brazil. The frequency of the outcome (death or non-death within 12 months) was analyzed by correlating it with the clinical data (impact of the studied variables).

RESULTS

Eight hundred forty patients entered the study. Fitfty-two of them (6.2%) died within one year. PGY-2 predicted that two hundred and fourteen patients (25.5% of total) would die within a year (answer No to SQ), of which, 32 (14.9%) did so. The correct residents' prognosis for the subgroup of 626 patients (answer "Yes" to SQ) was NPV = 96.8% (CI = 95.4%-98.2%) and PPV = 14.9% (CI 10.1%-19, 6%). Answering "Yes" to SQ correlated negatively to addressing AD while the outcomes death and the answer No to SQ were positively correlated, according to the number of comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

The SQ, in addition to care, contributed to health education, communication and care planning shared by the doctor and patient.

End of Life Care and Advance Care Planning for Outpatients with Inoperable Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

A significant proportion of patients with abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms (AA) do not proceed to intervention after reaching treatment threshold diameter due to a combination of poor cardiovascular reserve, frailty and aortic morphology. This patient cohort has a high mortality, however, until this study, there exist no studies on the end of life care conservatively managed patients receive.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective multicentre cohort study of 220 conservatively managed AA patients referred to Leeds Vascular Institute (UK) and Maastricht University Medical Centre (Netherlands) for intervention between 2017 and 2021.

METHODS

Demographic details, mortality, cause of death, advance care planning and palliative care outcomes were analysed to examine predictors of palliative care referral and efficacy of palliative care consultation.

RESULTS

A total of 1506 AA patients were seen over this time period, giving a non-intervention rate of 15%. There was a 3-year mortality rate of 55%, a median survival of 364 days and rupture was the reported cause of death in 18% of the decedents. Median follow up was 34 months. Only 8% of all patients and 16% of decedents received palliative care consultation, which took place a median of 3.5 days before death. Patients over 81 years of age were more likely to have advance care planning. Only 5% and 23% of conservatively managed patients had documentation of preferred place of death and care priorities respectively. Patients with palliative care consultation were more likely to have these in place.

CONCLUSION

Only a small proportion of conservatively treated patients had advance care planning and this was far below international guidelines on end of life care for adults, which recommend it for each of these patients. Pathways and guidance should be implemented to ensure patients not offered AA intervention receive end of life care and advance care planning.

Development and Implementation of a Real-Time Inpatient Palliative Care Screening Process to Promote Earlier Palliative Care Referrals

Despite the previous development of criteria for palliative screening tools, there remains a lack of validated and practical screening processes for the general hospitalized patient population for everyday clinical use. This quality improvement project's aim was to implement a practical institution-based adult inpatient palliative care screening tool embedded into the electronic medical record with an automated alert process to assist in identifying patients earlier within hospital admission. The project used a preimplementation and postimplementation design and followed the Plan-Do-Study-Act process to measure the effectiveness of the tool and alert process in decreasing time from admission to palliative care referral and impact on referring patterns. During the project period, 1851 palliative care referrals were completed, and minimal difference (0.6%) was noted in the average time from admission to referral preimplementation and postimplementation ( P = .939). There was a 3.7% increase in referrals postimplementation and a shift in referring service patterns ( P = .321). Although the expected outcome of earlier palliative referrals during admissions was not met, the development and implementation of the tool and alert process is a step toward the creation of a standard practical tool for the general hospitalized patient population.

The Surprise Question as a Trigger for Primary Palliative Care Interventions for Children with Advanced Heart Disease

There is significant uncertainty in describing prognosis and a lack of reliable entry criteria for palliative care studies in children with advanced heart disease (AHD). This study evaluates the utility of the surprise question-"Would you be surprised if this child died within the next year?"-to predict one-year mortality in children with AHD and assess its utility as entry criteria for future trials. This is a prospective cohort study of physicians and nurses caring for children (1 month-19 years) with AHD hospitalized ≥ 7 days. AHD was defined as single ventricle physiology, pulmonary vein stenosis or pulmonary hypertension, or any cardiac diagnosis with signs of advanced disease. Primary physicians were asked the surprise question and medical record review was performed. Forty-nine physicians responded to the surprise question for 152 patients. Physicians responded "No, I would not be surprised if this patient died" for 54 (36%) patients, 20 (37%) of whom died within 1 year, predicting one-year mortality with 77% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 37% positive predictive value, and 94% negative predictive value. Patients who received a "No" response had an increased 1-year risk of death (hazard ratio 7.25, p < 0.001). Physician years of experience, subspecialty, and self-rated competency were not associated with the accuracy of the surprise question. The surprise question offers promise as a bedside screening tool to identify children with AHD at high risk for mortality and help physicians identify patients who may benefit from palliative care and advance care planning discussions.

Likelihood Ratios: An Important Concept for Palliative Physicians to Understand

Palliative care has several tools and questionnaires which are commonly used for patient-related outcomes and prognosis. As an example, the Surprise Question (I would or would not be surprised that this person would have died in a year) has been used as a screen for palliative care referral but also used as a prognostic tool. Diagnostic tests, prognostic tools, and tools for gauging outcomes have certain sensitivity and specificity in predicting a diagnosis or outcome. Clinicians often use positive and negative predictive values in judging the merits of a diagnostic tool or questionnaire. However positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on the prevalence of disease or outcome in a population and thus are not portable across studies. Likelihood ratios are both portable across populations but also provide the strength of the diagnostic or predictive measure of a test or questionnaire. In this article, we review the value and limitations of likelihood ratios and illustrate the value of using likelihood ratios using 3 studies centered on the Surprise Question published in 2022.

End-of-Life Care for End-stage Heart Failure Patients

Efforts to improve end-of-life (EOL) care have generally been focused on cancer patients, but high-quality EOL care is also important for patients with other serious medical illnesses including heart failure (HF). Recent HF guidelines offer more clinical considerations for palliative care including EOL care than ever before. Because HF patients can experience rapid, unexpected clinical deterioration or sudden death throughout the disease trajectory, choosing an appropriate time to discuss issues such as advance directives or hospice can be challenging in real clinical situations. Therefore, EOL issues should be discussed early. Conversations are important for understanding patient and family expectations and developing mutually agreed goals of care. In particular, high-quality communication with patient and family through a multidisciplinary team is necessary to define patient-centered goals of care and establish treatment based on goals. Control of symptoms such as dyspnea, pain, anxiety/depression, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, and altered mental status throughout the dying process is an important issue that is often overlooked. When quality-of-life outweighs expanding quantity-of-life, the transition to EOL care should be considered. Advanced care planning including resuscitation (i.e., do-not resuscitate order), device deactivation, site for last days and bereavement support for the family should focus on ensuring a good death and be reviewed regularly. It is essential to ensure that treatment for all HF patients incorporates discussions about the overall goals of care and individual patient preferences at both the EOL and sudden changes in health status. In this review, we focus on EOL care for end-stage HF patients.

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.

A novel care guide for personalised palliative care - a national initiative for improved quality of care

Background

Even when palliative care is an integrated part of the healthcare system, the quality is still substandard for many patients and often initiated too late. There is a lack of structured guidelines for identifying and caring for patients; in particular for those with early palliative care needs. A care guide can act as a compass for best practice and support the care of patients throughout their palliative trajectory. Such a guide should both meet the needs of health care professionals and patients and families, facilitating discussion around end-of-life decision-making and enabling them to plan for the remaining time in life. The aim of this article is to describe the development and pilot testing of a novel Swedish palliative care guide.

Methods

The Swedish Palliative Care Guide (S-PCG) was developed according to the Medical Research Council framework and based on national and international guidelines for good palliative care. An interdisciplinary national advisory committee of over 90 health care professionals together with patient, family and public representatives were engaged in the process. The feasibility was tested in three pilot studies in different care settings.

Results

After extensive multi-unit and interprofessional testing and evaluation, the S-PCG contains three parts that can be used independently to identify, assess, address, follow up, and document the individual symptoms and care-needs throughout the whole palliative care trajectory. The S-PCG can provide a comprehensive overview and shared understanding of the patients’ needs and possibilities for ensuring optimal quality of life, the family included.

Conclusions

Based on broad professional cooperation, patients and family participation and clinical testing, the S-PCG provides unique interprofessional guidance for assessment and holistic care of patients with palliative care needs, promotes support to the family, and when properly used supports high-quality personalised palliative care throughout the palliative trajectory. Future steps for the S-PCG, entails scientific evaluation of the clinical impact and effect of S-PCG in different care settings – including implementation, patient and family outcomes, and experiences of patient, family and personnel.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00874-4.