Using the "Surprise Question" to Predict Frailty and Healthcare Outcomes among Older Adults Attending the Emergency Department

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.

Association between Boarding of Frail Individuals in the Emergency Department and Mortality: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Older patients who attend emergency departments are frailer than younger patients and are at a high risk of adverse outcomes; (2) Methods: To conduct this systematic review, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. We systematically searched literature from PubMed, Embase, OVID Medline®, Scopus, CINAHL via EBSCOHost, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2023, while for grey literature we used Google Scholar. No time restrictions were applied, and only articles published in English were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of the studies and extracted relevant data from the articles that met our predefined inclusion criteria. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) was used to assess the quality of the studies; (3) Results: Evidence indicates that prolonged boarding of frail individuals in crowded emergency departments (Eds) is associated with adverse outcomes, exacerbation of pre-existing conditions, and increased mortality risk; (4) Conclusions: Our results suggest that frail individuals are at risk of longer ED stays and higher mortality rates. However, the association between the mortality of frail patients and the amount of time a patient spends in exposure to the ED environment has not been fully explored. Further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

The Physician Surprise Question in the Emergency Department: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to test the ability of the surprise question (SQ), when asked to emergency physicians (EPs), to predict in-hospital mortality among adults admitted to an emergency room (ER).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study at an academic medical centre included consecutive patients 18 years or older who received care in the ER and were subsequently admitted to the hospital from 20 April 2018 to 20 October 2018. EPs were required to answer the SQ for all patients who were being admitted to hospital. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The cohort included 725 adults (mean (SD) age, 60 (17) years, 51% men) from 58 128 emergency department (ED) visits. The mortality rates were 20.6% for 30-day all-cause in-hospital mortality and 23.6% for in-hospital mortality. The diagnostic test characteristics of the SQ have a sensitivity of 53.7% and specificity of 87.1%, and a relative risk of 4.02 (95% CI 3.15 to 5.13), p<0.01). The positive and negative predictive values were 57% and 86%, respectively; the positive likelihood ratio was 4.1 and negative likelihood ratio was 0.53; and the accuracy was 79.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that asking the SQ to EPs may be a useful tool to identify patients in the ED with a high risk of in-hospital mortality.

Screening tools to identify patients with unmet palliative care needs in the emergency department: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review identified and assessed psychometric properties of the available screening tools to identify patients with unmet palliative care (PC) needs in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases and the gray literature was conducted. Two independent reviewers completed study screening and inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment. A descriptive summary of the results was reported using median of medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs).

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies were included, involving the assessment of 14 unique screening tools. The most commonly used screening tool was the surprise question (SQ; n = 12 studies), followed by the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) tool (n = 8), and the screening for palliative and end-of-life care needs in the emergency department (SPEED) instrument (n = 4). Twelve of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the screening tools, of which eight of these studies assessed the performance of the SQ to predict patient mortality. Overall, the median sensitivity (63%, IQR 38%-78%) and specificity (75%, IQR 57%-84%) of the SQ to predict mortality at 1 or 12 months was moderate. While the median positive predictive value of the SQ was low (32%, IQR 16%-40%), the median negative predictive value was high (91%, IQR 88%-95%). Across the studies, the proportion of patients identified as having unmet PC based on the criteria of the screening tools ranged from 5% to 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified 14 unique screening tools used to identify adult patients with unmet PC needs in the ED. One screening tool, the SQ, was found to have moderate sensitivity and specificity to accurately predict future patient mortality. Additional research is needed to better understand the clinical value of this and the other available tools prior to their widespread implementation.

Research Roundup

Synopses of a selection of recently published research articles of relevance to palliative care.