Search

The surprise question screening tool ("Would I be surprised if this person died within the next 12 months?") was initially developed to identify possible palliative care needs. One controversial topic regarding the surprise question is whether it should be used as a prognostic tool (predicting survival) for patients with life-limiting illnesses. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three groups of expert clinicians independently answered this question. All experts provide an overview of current literature, practical advice, and opportunities for future research. All experts reported on the inconsistency of the prognostic capabilities of the surprise question. Two of the three expert groups felt that the surprise question should not be used as a prognostic tool due to these inconsistencies. The third expert group felt that the surprise question should be used as a prognostic tool, particularly for shorter time frames. The experts all highlighted that the original rationale for the surprise question was to trigger a further conversation about future treatment and a potential shift in the focus of the care, identifying patients who many benefit from specialist palliative care or advance care planning; however, many clinicians find this discussion a difficult one to initiate. The experts agreed that the benefit of the surprise question comes from its simplicity: a one-question tool that requires no specific information about the patient's condition. More research is needed to better support the application of this tool in routine practice, particularly in noncancer populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients receiving palliative care value attention given to their spiritual needs. However, these needs often remain unexplored as healthcare professionals lack the skills to identify and explore them and to integrate this information into care plans. Aim: To evaluate the effects of an interactive communication training intervention for palliative care teams in order to identify and explore the spiritual dimension and integrate it in patients' care plans. Design: A mixed methods pre-post study, including self-assessment questionnaires, evaluation of videos with simulated consultations (applied competence) and medical record review (implementation). Setting/participants: Three palliative care teams including nurses (N = 21), physicians (N = 14) and spiritual caregivers (N = 3). Results: The questionnaires showed an improvement on 'Patient and family-centred communication' of the End-of-life professional caregiver survey (+0.37, p < 0.01; the 8-item S-EOLC (+0.54, p < 0.01) and regarding the Spiritual Care Competence Scale, on the three subscales used (+0.27, p < 0.01, +0.29, p < 0.01 and +0.32, p < 0.01). Video evaluations showed increased attention being paid to patient's aims and needs. The medical record review showed an increase in anticipation on the non-somatic dimension (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.2–4.3, p < 0.05) and, using the Mount Vernon Cancer Network assessment tool, addressing spiritual issues (OR: 10.9, 95% CI: 3.7–39.5, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our training intervention resulted in increased palliative care professionals' competence in identifying and exploring patients' spiritual issues, and their integration in multidimensional proactive palliative care plans. The intervention directly addresses patients' spiritual concerns and adds value to their palliative care plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]