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]

Palliative medicine is a young specialty that is officially recognized in relatively few countries. The World Health Organization published an adapted definition in 2002, describing palliative care as an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness. When the accent is shifting from curative to palliative, the goal of management is the maintenance or improvement of the patient's quality of life. The different dimensions of palliative care and the multitude of types of care to be provided require a multidisciplinary, well-functioning team, effective communication and a clear task division between primary and hospital care. Considering the complexity of care for incurable patients, a multidisciplinary approach is a prerequisite to balance curative and palliative intervention options. Optimal functioning of a team requires excellent training, communication and a description of the tasks and responsibilities of each team member. More and more advanced care planning is introduced in palliative care, focusing on an early identification of patients in a palliative trajectory and on the prevention of annoying symptoms, hoping that this approach results in an improved quality of life for the individual patient, less useless technical investigations and a better end-of-life care on the place the patient and his family desires. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: scientific evidence regarding the optimal management of malnutrition in geriatric patients is scarce. Our aim was to develop a consensus statement for geriatric hospital practice concerning six elements: (i) definition of malnutrition, (ii) screening and assessment, (iii) treatment and monitoring, (iv) roles and responsibilities of involved health care professionals, (v) communication and coordination of care between hospital and community health care professionals, (vi) quality indicators for malnutrition management.Design: a modified Delphi study.Methods: eleven geriatricians with special interest in malnutrition participated. In four rounds the experts rated the relevance of 204 statements, which were based on a literature review, on a five-point Likert scale. From the responses, means and 95% CIs were calculated. Consensus was defined as a lower 95% confidence limit ≥4.0.Results: the panel reached consensus that malnutrition should be considered a geriatric syndrome. The nutritional status should be assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment combined with comprehensive geriatric assessment. Nutritional interventions should be combined with interventions targeting underlying factors. Specific goals for nutritional therapy and ways to achieve them were agreed upon. According to the experts, malnutrition is best managed by a multidisciplinary team for whom roles and responsibilities were specified. At discharge written information about the nutritional problem, treatment plan and goals should be provided to the patient, caregiver and community health care professionals.Conclusion: this study shows that a qualitative study based on a modified Delphi technique can result in national consensus on essential ingredients for a practical malnutrition guideline for geriatric patients. [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]