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]

Purpose: Evaluation of the quality of care is a key element that healthcare providers now take into consideration to meet patients' needs, expectations, and values. The FAMCARE scale is one of the most important instruments available to assess the level of satisfaction about care received by patients and families. We describe the validation process used to develop an Italian version (IF) of the original FAMCARE scale for caregivers.Methods: The IF was prepared according to standard guidelines for translation and transcultural adaptation of self-reported measures. The scale was self-administered to 132 informal caregivers of patients with cancer treated with curative and/or palliative care in a hospice, outpatient, or inpatient setting for at least 1 month. The participant group was composed of spouses (47.73 %), children (31.82 %), siblings (3.03 %), or other relatives (17.42 %). All participants simultaneously completed the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire to test the construct validity. Twenty-two percent of randomly chosen participants re-completed the test after 1 month to evaluate IF test-retest stability.Results: The IF showed a strong reliability with internal consistency [α = 0.93, confidence intervals (CI) = 0.91-0.95] and test-retest stability (Pearson r = 0.38; Kendall's tau-b = 0,25; Spearman's rho =0.34). Factor analysis identified four factors capable of explaining the 63 % total variance which did not change after the Varimax normalized rotation. Notwithstanding the lack of correlation with the VAS component of the EQ-5D questionnaire, our results highlighted robust psychometric properties of the IF.Conclusions: IF is a valid translation of the FAMCARE scale and can be used to assess caregiver satisfaction within the Italian context of cancer palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers. Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care. Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the past decades, many new insights and best practices in palliative care, a relatively new field in health care, have been published. However, this knowledge is often not implemented. The aim of this study therefore was to identify strategies to implement improvement activities identified in a research project within daily palliative care practice. Methods: A nominal group technique was used with members of the IMPACT consortium, being international researchers and clinicians in cancer care, dementia care and palliative care. Participants identified and prioritized implementation strategies. Data was analyzed qualitatively using inductive coding. Results: Twenty international clinicians and researchers participated in one of two parallel nominal group sessions. The recommended strategies to implement results from a research project were grouped in five common themes: 1. Dissemination of results e.g. by publishing results tailored to relevant audiences, 2. Identification and dissemination of unique selling points, 3. education e.g. by developing e-learning tools and integrating scientific evidence into core curricula, 4. Stimulation of participation of stakeholders, and 5. consideration of consequences e.g. rewarding services for their implementation successes but not services that fail to implement quality improvement activities. Discussion: The added value of this nominal group study lies in the prioritisation by the experts of strategies to influence the implementation of quality improvement activities in palliative care. Efforts to ensure future use of scientific findings should be built into research projects in order to prevent waste of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a wide gap between knowledge about palliative care and its application in everyday clinical practice, affecting many patients in our ageing population. However, changing health care practice is a complex and challenging process. Therefore, the EU funded IMplementation of quality indicators in PAlliative Care sTudy (IMPACT) project aims to develop optimal implementation strategies to improve the organization of palliative care for people with cancer or with dementia in Europe. Methods and design The organization of palliative care in Europe will be mapped to develop and prepare strategies to improve it, and an overview of barriers and incentives regarding successful organizational changes in palliative care will be undertaken. A pre-test with a set of quality indicators (QIs), developed within the project, will be used to identify aspects of the organization of palliative care requiring change in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and primary care in five European countries. Based on the results of the pre-test, each setting will be invited to prioritise and improve aspects of their organization that appeared weak. The improvement objective they choose will be tailored to national and setting-specific barriers. Finally, a post-test with the same QIs will determine the effectiveness of the strategies used. An extensive process analysis will be conducted throughout the entire study. Discussion It is expected that the IMPACT project will provide professionals and policy makers useful tools to facilitate effective implementation of high-quality palliative cancer and dementia care in different settings in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following publication of the original article [1], an error in reference 18 was reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (SQ) "would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?" has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?") alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions. Methods: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance – 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A "surprise threshold" for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance. Discussion: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]