Search

To help general practitioners (GPs) in early identification of patients with palliative care (PC) needs, this pilot study aimed to determine the potential of the combined original surprise question (SQ1) (‘Would I be surprised if this patient died within the next 12 months?’) and the second surprise question (SQ2) (‘Would I be surprised if this patient was still alive after 12 months?’). We hypothesized that answering these SQs would trigger them to make a multidimensional care plan.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Specialist-provided end-of-life scenarios (SP-EOLS) may improve advance care planning (ACP) implementation in primary care by helping overcome barriers such as uncertain prognosis and poor interprofessional collaboration. We aimed to explore the current use and potential impact of SP-EOLS on ACP in Dutch primary care., Methods: We performed a mixed-methods study. From patients discussed in a hospital-based academic palliative care multidisciplinary team meeting between 2016 and 2019 and died, we collected primary care electronic medical records data on SP-EOLS, actual EOLS, and ACP initiation and applied descriptive and comparative analyses. Subsequently, we interviewed general practitioners (GPs) and thematically analyzed the transcripts., Results: In 69.7% of 66 reviewed patient files, SP-EOLS were found. In patients whose GP had received SP-EOLS, ACP conversations were more often reported (92.0 vs. 61.0%, p = 0.006). From 11 GP interviews, we identified 4 themes: (1) SP-EOLS guide GPs, patients, and relatives when dealing with an uncertain future perspective; (2) SP-EOLS provide continuity of care between primary and secondary/tertiary care; (3) SP-EOLS should be tailored to the individual patient; and (4) SP-EOLS need to be personalized and uniformly transferred to GPs., Significance of Results: SP-EOLS may facilitate ACP conversations by GPs. They have the potential to help overcome existing barriers to ACP implementation by providing guidance and supporting interprofessional collaboration. Future research should focus on improving SP-EOLS and tailor them to the needs of all end users, focusing on improving their effect on ACP conversations.