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]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]