Search

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]

Background: Early integration of palliative care can improve outcomes for people with cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. However, prediction of survival for individuals is challenging, in particular in patients with haematological malignancies who are known to have limited access to palliative care. The 'Surprise'-Question can be used to facilitate referral to palliative care. Aim: To explore experiences, views and perceptions of haemato-oncologists on the use of the 'Surprise'-Question in the haemato-oncology outpatients clinics of a university hospital in Germany. Design: A qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically based on the framework approach. Setting/participants: The study took place at the haemato-oncology outpatient clinic and the bone marrow transplantation outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Nine haemato-oncologists participated in qualitative interviews. Results: Thematic analysis identified 4 themes and 11 subthemes: (1) meaning and relevance of the 'Surprise'-Question; (2) feasibility; (3) the concept of 'surprise' and (4) personal aspects of prognostication. A key function of the 'Surprise'-Question was to stimulate intuition and promote patient-centred goals of care by initiating a process of pause → reflection → change of perspective. It was easy and quick to use, but required time and communication skills to act on. Participants' training in palliative care enhanced their willingness to use the 'Surprise'-Question. Conclusion: Irrespective of its use in prognostication, the 'Surprise'-Question is a valuable tool to facilitate consideration of patient-centred goals and promote holistic care in haemato-oncology. However, prognostic uncertainty, lack of time and communication skills are barriers for integration into daily practice. Further research should involve haematology patients to integrate their needs and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The provision of care for dying cancer patients varies on a global basis. In order to improve care, we need to be able to evaluate the current level of care. One method of assessment is to use the views from the bereaved relatives. Aim: The aim of this study is to translate and pre-test the 'Care Of the Dying Evaluation' (CODETM) questionnaire across seven participating countries prior to conducting an evaluation of current quality of care. Design: The three stages were as follows: (1) translation of CODE in keeping with standardised international principles; (2) pre-testing using patient and public involvement and cognitive interviews with bereaved relatives; and (3) utilising a modified nominal group technique to establish a common, core international version of CODE. Setting/participants: Hospital settings: for each country, at least five patient and public involvement representatives, selected by purposive sampling, fed back on CODETM questionnaire; and at least five bereaved relatives to cancer patients undertook cognitive interviews. Feedback was collated and categorised into themes relating to clarity, recall, sensitivity and response options. Structured consensus meeting held to determine content of international CODE (i-CODE) questionnaire. Results: In total, 48 patient and public involvement representatives and 35 bereaved relatives contributed to the pre-testing stages. No specific question item was recommended for exclusion from CODETM. Revisions to the demographic section were needed to be culturally appropriate. Conclusion: Patient and public involvement and bereaved relatives' perceptions helped enhance the face and content validity of i-CODE. A common, core international questionnaire is now developed with key questions relating to quality of care for the dying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]