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: Few hospitals and heart failure (HF) clinics offer concurrent palliative care (PC) together with life-prolonging therapies. To know the prevalence of patients in HF clinics needing PC and useful tools to recognize them are the first steps to extending PC in those settings. However, it is still unknown whether tools commonly used to identify patients with HF needing PC can correctly distinguish them. Two systematic reviews found that the NECesidades PALiativas (NECPAL) tool was one of the two most commonly used tools to asses PC needs in HF patients. Therefore, we assessed 1) the prevalence of PC needs in HF clinics according to the NECPAL tool, and 2) the characteristics of the patients identified as having PC; mainly, their quality of life (QoL), symptom burden, and psychosocial problems. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at two HF clinics in Colombia. We assessed the prevalence of PC in the overall sample and in subgroups according to clinical and demographic variables. We assessed QoL, symptom burden, and psychosocial problems using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). We compared the results of these tools between patients identified as having PC needs (+NECPAL) and patients identified as not having PC needs (–NECPAL). Results: Among the 178 patients, 78 (44%) had PC needs. The prevalence of PC needs was twice as nigh in patients NYHA III/IV as in patients NYHA I/II and almost twice as high in patients older than 70 years as in patients younger than 70 years. Compared to –NECPAL patients, +NECPAL patients had worse QoL, more severe shortness of breath, tiredness, drowsiness, and pain, and more psychosocial problems. Conclusion: The prevalence of PC needs in outpatient HF clinics is high and is even higher in older patients and in patients at more advanced NYHA stages. Compared to patients identified as not having PC needs, patients identified as having PC needs have worse QoL, more severe symptoms, and greater psychosocial problems. Including a PC provider in the multidisciplinary team of HF clinics may help to assess and cover these needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term "palliative care" (PC) has often been found to have a negative connotation leading some to suggest rebranding and some services to change their name. Perceptions of the PC community about the term remain largely unexplored. Objective: To explore how PC researchers/academics perceive the term is the objective of this study. Design: This is a cross-sectional survey of attendees to the 10th World Research Congress of the EAPC. The questionnaire covered areas of academic activity, including the use of the term. We analyzed data through descriptive and nonparametric statistics and open responses through content analysis. Participants: Academics and researchers in PC were the participants in this study. Results: Of 318 respondents, the majority were women (65%), physicians (48%), and had a postgraduate degree (90%). For 40%, the term hindered the positioning of PC, 28% worried about using the term, and 55% did not discuss these difficulties. We found significant differences between responses and several demographics (e.g., younger age and higher likelihood of worrying about the term). Through open responses, we identified that the term is widely in use, and that its limitations are seen as a cultural by-product, and not as something that a name change would solve. Conclusions: Senior PC academics, researchers, and clinicians have an onus to ensure that colleagues with limited PC experience have the opportunity to discuss and explore the impact of the term on the practice of research. Regarding the term itself, the community's views are conclusive: although using the term will remain a difficult task, the field's identity is in the name. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]