The utility of the surprise question by nurses to identify hospitalised older patients nearing the end-of-life and promotion of advance care planning: An interventional study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question (SQ) when used by nurses working in hospital wards to determine 1-year mortality in acutely hospitalised older patients. BACKGROUND: The predictive accuracy of the SQ, when used by general nurses caring for older hospitalised patients, has not been comprehensively studied. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. METHODS: This cohort study recruited consecutive 10,139 older patients (aged ≥65 years) who were admitted to Taipei City Hospital and were evaluated for the needs of palliative care in 2015. All patients were followed up for 12 months or until their death. The c-statistic value was calculated to indicate the predictive accuracy of the SQ and Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST). RESULTS: Of all participants, 18.8% and 18.6% had a SQ response of 'no' and a PCST score ≥4, respectively. After controlling for other covariates, an SQ response of 'no' (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-2.31) and a PCST score ≥4 (AHR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.29-1.75) were found to be the independent predictors for patients' 12-month mortality. The C-statistic values of the SQ and the PCST at recognising patients in their last year of life were .663 and .670, respectively. Moreover, there was moderate concordance (k = .44) between the SQ and the PCST in predicting 12-month mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SQ response of 'no' and a PCST score ≥4 were independent predictors of 12-month mortality in older patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The SQ, when used by nurses working in hospital wards, is effective in identifying older patients nearing the end of life, as well as in providing advance care planning for patients. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients' palliative care needs at admission were assessed by general nurses using the SQ and PCST.

The applicability of the "surprise question" as a prognostic tool in patients with severe chronic comorbidities in a university teaching outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy in recent decades has increased the prevalence of chronic diseases in the population, requiring an approach to new health topics, such as discussions on quality of life and expectations about death and dying. The concept of advance directives (ADs) gives individuals the opportunity to make known their decisions about the treatments they would like to receive at the end of life. Despite the recognition of relevance in clinical practice, the applicability of the concept presents challenges, including establishing the appropriate prognosis for each patient and the ideal time to approach the patient. Some prognostic tools were developed, such as the surprise question (SQ): "Would you be surprised if your patient died in 12 months?", which is used in some clinical settings to predict patient deaths and to make decisions regarding ADs. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate the behavior of second-year resident physicians (PGY-2) when the SQ was applied. METHOD: In our observational study, from July 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017, (PGY-2) in the Internal Medicine Residency Program (IMRP) applied SQ to all patients with multiple and varied chronic no communicable comorbidities, who were followed up at the general medicine outpatient clinic (GMOC) of a tertiary university hospital in São Paulo- Brazil. The frequency of the outcome (death or non-death within 12 months) was analyzed by correlating it with the clinical data (impact of the studied variables). RESULTS: Eight hundred forty patients entered the study. Fitfty-two of them (6.2%) died within one year. PGY-2 predicted that two hundred and fourteen patients (25.5% of total) would die within a year (answer No to SQ), of which, 32 (14.9%) did so. The correct residents' prognosis for the subgroup of 626 patients (answer "Yes" to SQ) was NPV = 96.8% (CI = 95.4%-98.2%) and PPV = 14.9% (CI 10.1%-19, 6%). Answering "Yes" to SQ correlated negatively to addressing AD while the outcomes death and the answer No to SQ were positively correlated, according to the number of comorbidities. CONCLUSION: The SQ, in addition to care, contributed to health education, communication and care planning shared by the doctor and patient.

The utility of the surprise question: A useful tool for identifying patients nearing the last phase of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surprise question is widely used to identify patients nearing the last phase of life. Potential differences in accuracy between timeframe, patient subgroups and type of healthcare professionals answering the surprise question have been suggested. Recent studies might give new insights. AIM: To determine the accuracy of the surprise question in predicting death, differentiating by timeframe, patient subgroup and by type of healthcare professional. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception till 22nd January 2021. Studies were eligible if they used the surprise question prospectively and assessed mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and c-statistic were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including 88.268 assessments. The meta-analysis resulted in an estimated sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI [66.3-76.4]) and specificity of 74.0% (95% CI [69.3-78.6]). The negative predictive value varied from 98.0% (95% CI [97.7-98.3]) to 88.6% (95% CI [87.1-90.0]) with a mortality rate of 5% and 25% respectively. The positive predictive value varied from 12.6% (95% CI [11.0-14.2]) with a mortality rate of 5% to 47.8% (95% CI [44.2-51.3]) with a mortality rate of 25%. Seven studies provided detailed information on different healthcare professionals answering the surprise question. CONCLUSION: We found overall reasonable test characteristics for the surprise question. Additionally, this study showed notable differences in performance within patient subgroups. However, we did not find an indication of notable differences between timeframe and healthcare professionals.

The development of the ADO-SQ model to predict 1-year mortality in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Goals of end-of-life care must be adapted to the needs of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are in the last phase of life. However, identification of those patients is limited by moderate performances of existing prognostic models and by limited validation of the often-recommended surprise question. AIM: To develop a clinical prediction model to predict 1-year mortality in patients with COPD. DESIGN: Prospective study using logistic regression to develop a model in two steps: (1) external validation of the ADO, BODEX, or CODEX models (A = age; B = body mass index; C = comorbidity; D = dyspnea; EX = exacerbations; O = airflow obstruction); (2) updating of best performing model and extending it with the surprise question. Discriminative performance of the new model was assessed using internal-external validation and measured with area under the curve (AUC). A nomogram and web application were developed. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COPD from five hospitals (September-November 2017). RESULTS: Of the 358 included patients (median age 69.5 years, 50% male), 63 (17%) died within a year. The ADO index (AUC 0.73) had the best discriminative ability compared to the BODEX (AUC 0.71) or CODEX (AUC 0.68), and was extended with the surprise question. The resulting ADO-surprise question (SQ) model had an AUC of 0.79. CONCLUSION: The ADO-SQ model offers improved discriminative performance for predicting 1-year mortality compared to the surprise question, ADO, BODEX, or CODEX. A user-friendly nomogram and web application (https://dnieboer.shinyapps.io/copd) were developed. Further external validation of the ADO-SQ in patient groups is needed.

The prognostic value of the 12-, 6-, 3- and 1-month 'Surprise Question' in cancer patients: A prospective cohort study in three hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aimed to evaluate the performance of the 'Surprise Question' (SQ) 'Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?' in predicting survival of 12, 6, 3 and 1 month(s), respectively, in hospitalised patients with cancer. METHODS: In three hospitals, physicians were asked to answer SQs for 12/6/3/1 month(s) for inpatients with cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 783 patients were included, of whom 51% died in the 12-month period after inclusion. Sensitivity of the SQ predicting death within 12 months was 0.79, specificity was 0.66, the positive predictive value was 0.71 and the negative predictive value was 0.75. When the SQ concerned a shorter survival period, sensitivities and positive predictive values decreased, whereas specificities and negative predictive values increased. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the SQ was significantly associated with mortality (OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.70-5.71, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month SQ predicts death in patients with cancer admitted to the hospital reasonably well. Shortening the timeframe decreases sensitivities and increases specificities. The four surprise questions may help to identify patients for whom palliative care is indicated.

The development and feasibility study of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic: the MUTUAL intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients still receive non-beneficial treatments when nearing the end of life. Advance care planning (ACP) interventions have shown to positively influence compliance with end of life wishes. Hospital physicians seem to miss opportunities to engage in ACP, whereas patients visiting the outpatient clinic usually have one or more chronic conditions and are at risk for medical emergencies. So far, implemented ACP interventions have had limited impact. Structural implementation of ACP may be beneficial. We hypothesize that having ACP conversations more towards the end of life and involving the treating physician in the ACP conversation may help patient wishes and goals to become more concrete and more often documented, thus facilitating goal-concordant care. AIM: To facilitate timely shared decision making and increase patient autonomy we aim to develop an ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic for frail patients and determine the feasibility of the intervention. METHODS: The United Kingdom's Medical Research Council framework was used to structure the development of the ACP intervention. Key elements of the ACP intervention were determined by reviewing existing literature and an iterative process with stakeholders. The feasibility of the developed intervention was evaluated by a feasibility study of 20 ACP conversations at the geriatrics and pulmonology department of a non-academic hospital. Feasibility was assessed by analysing evaluation forms by patients, nurses and physicians and by evaluating with stakeholders. A general inductive approach was used for analysing comments. The developed intervention was described using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR). RESULTS: We developed a multidisciplinary timely undertaken ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic. Key components of the developed intervention consist of 1) timely patient selection 2) preparation of patient and healthcare professional 3) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and 4) documentation. 94.7% of the patients, 60.0% of the nurses and 68.8% of the physicians agreed that the benefits of the ACP conversation outweighed the potential burdens. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the developed ACP intervention is feasible and considered valuable by patients and healthcare professionals.

The Surprise Question as a Trigger for Primary Palliative Care Interventions for Children with Advanced Heart Disease.

There is significant uncertainty in describing prognosis and a lack of reliable entry criteria for palliative care studies in children with advanced heart disease (AHD). This study evaluates the utility of the surprise question-"Would you be surprised if this child died within the next year?"-to predict one-year mortality in children with AHD and assess its utility as entry criteria for future trials. This is a prospective cohort study of physicians and nurses caring for children (1 month-19 years) with AHD hospitalized ≥ 7 days. AHD was defined as single ventricle physiology, pulmonary vein stenosis or pulmonary hypertension, or any cardiac diagnosis with signs of advanced disease. Primary physicians were asked the surprise question and medical record review was performed. Forty-nine physicians responded to the surprise question for 152 patients. Physicians responded "No, I would not be surprised if this patient died" for 54 (36%) patients, 20 (37%) of whom died within 1 year, predicting one-year mortality with 77% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 37% positive predictive value, and 94% negative predictive value. Patients who received a "No" response had an increased 1-year risk of death (hazard ratio 7.25, p < 0.001). Physician years of experience, subspecialty, and self-rated competency were not associated with the accuracy of the surprise question. The surprise question offers promise as a bedside screening tool to identify children with AHD at high risk for mortality and help physicians identify patients who may benefit from palliative care and advance care planning discussions.

"The surprise questions" using variable time frames in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies supported the usefulness of "the surprise question" in terms of 1-year mortality of patients. "The surprise question" requires a "Yes" or "No" answer to the question "Would I be surprised if this patient died in [specific time frame]." However, the 1-year time frame is often too long for advanced cancer patients seen by palliative care personnel. "The surprise question" with shorter time frames is needed for decision making. We examined the accuracy of "the surprise question" for 7-day, 21-day, and 42-day survival in hospitalized patients admitted to palliative care units (PCUs). METHOD: This was a prospective multicenter cohort study of 130 adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to 7 hospital-based PCUs in South Korea. The accuracy of "the surprise question" was compared with that of the temporal question for clinician's prediction of survival. RESULTS: We analyzed 130 inpatients who died in PCUs during the study period. The median survival was 21.0 days. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for the 7-day "the surprise question" were 46.7, 88.7, and 83.9%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for the 7-day temporal question were 6.7, 98.3, and 87.7%, respectively. The c-indices of the 7-day "the surprise question" and 7-day temporal question were 0.662 (95% CI: 0.539-0.785) and 0.521 (95% CI: 0.464-0.579), respectively. The c-indices of the 42-day "the surprise question" and 42-day temporal question were 0.554 (95% CI: 0.509-0.599) and 0.616 (95% CI: 0.569-0.663), respectively. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Surprisingly, "the surprise questions" and temporal questions had similar accuracies. The high specificities for the 7-day "the surprise question" and 7- and 21-day temporal question suggest they may be useful to rule in death if positive.

How Well Does the Surprise Question Predict 1-year Mortality for Patients Admitted with COPD?

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often receive burdensome care at end-of-life (EOL) and infrequently complete advance care planning (ACP). The surprise question (SQ) is a prognostic tool that may facilitate ACP. OBJECTIVE: To assess how well the SQ predicts mortality and prompts ACP for COPD patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of COPD between July 2015 and September 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians answered, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days (ED)/one year (inpatient)?" The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the SQ in predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality. The secondary outcome was the correlation between SQ and ACP (palliative care consultation, documented goals-of-care conversation, change in code status, or completion of ACP document). KEY RESULTS: The 30-day SQ had a high specificity but low sensitivity for predicting 30-day mortality: sensitivity 12%, specificity 95%, PPV 11%, and NPV 96%. The 1-year SQ demonstrated better accuracy for predicting 1-year mortality: sensitivity 47%, specificity 75%, PPV 35%, and NPV 83%. After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, and prior 6-month admissions, 1-year SQ+ responses were associated with greater odds of 1-year mortality (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.39-4.08) versus SQ-. One-year SQ+ patients were more likely to have a goals-of-care conversation (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.01) and complete an advance directive or POLST (46% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, SQ+ responses to the 1-year SQ were associated with greater odds of ACP receipt (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.64-4.36). CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year surprise question may be an effective component of prognostication and advance care planning for COPD patients in the inpatient setting.

Timely identification of patients in need of palliative care using the Double Surprise Question: A prospective study on outpatients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12 months?") is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?") if the original Surprise Question is answered with "no." The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question. AIM: To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer. DESIGN: A prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients. RESULTS: In group 1 (original Surprise Question "yes": surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question "no": not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question "no," additional Surprise Question "yes": surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) (p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b. CONCLUSIONS: The Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care.

The Surprise Question and Serious Illness Conversations: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Serious Illness Conversations aim to discuss patient goals. However, on acute medicine units, seriously ill patients may undergo distressing interventions until death. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of using the Surprise Question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" to identify patients who would benefit from early Serious Illness Conversations and study any changes in the interdisciplinary team's beliefs, confidence, and engagement as a result of asking the Surprise Question. DESIGN: A prospective cohort pilot study with two Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. PARTICIPANTS/CONTEXT: Fifty-eight healthcare professionals working on Acute Medicine Units participated in pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. The intervention involved asking participants the Surprise Question for each patient. Patient charts were reviewed for Serious Illness Conversation documentation. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was granted by the institutions involved. FINDINGS: Equivocal overall changes in the beliefs, confidence, and engagement of healthcare professionals were observed. Six out of 23 patients were indicated as needing a Serious Illness Conversation; chart review provided some evidence that these patients had more Serious Illness Conversation documentation compared with the 17 patients not flagged for a Serious Illness Conversation. Issues were identified in equating the Surprise Question to a Serious Illness Conversation. DISCUSSION: Appropriate support for seriously ill patients is both a nursing professional and ethical duty. Flagging patients for conversations may act as a filtering process, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on conversations with patients who need them most. There are ethical and practical issues as to what constitutes a "serious illness" and if answering "no" to the Surprise Question always equates to a conversation. CONCLUSION: The barriers of time constraints and lack of training call for institutional change in order to prioritise the moral obligation of Serious Illness Conversations.

Hidden lives and deaths: the last months of life of people with intellectual disabilities living in long-term, generic care settings in the UK.

RATIONALE: This paper concerns mortality and needs for end-of-life care in a population of adults with ID living in generic care homes. METHODS: Various sampling strategies were used to identify a difficult to find a population of people with ID in generic care homes. Demographic and health data were obtained for 132 people with ID. This included the Surprise Question. At T2, 12 months later, data were obtained on the survival of this sample. FINDINGS: The average age was 68.6 years, and the majority were women (55.3%). Their health was typically rated as good or better. Responses to the Surprise Question indicated that 23.3% respondents might need EoLC. At T2, 18.0% of this population had died. The average of death was 72.2 years. The majority died within the care setting (62.9%). IMPLICATIONS: The implications for end-of-life care and mortality research are discussed.

Derivation and validation of a prognostic model to predict mortality in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Guiding patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) through advance care planning about future treatment obliges an assessment of prognosis. A patient-specific integrated model to predict mortality could inform shared decision-making for patients with CKD. METHODS: Patients with Stages 4 and 5 CKD from Massachusetts (749) and West Virginia (437) were prospectively evaluated for clinical parameters, functional status [Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS)] and their provider's response to the Surprise Question (SQ). A predictive model for 12-month mortality was derived with the Massachusetts cohort and then validated externally on the West Virginia cohort. Logistic regression was used to create the model, and the c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic were used to assess model discrimination and calibration, respectively. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the SQ, KPS and age were most predictive of 12-month mortality with odds ratios (ORs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 3.29 (1.87-5.78) for a 'No' response to the SQ, 2.09 (95% CI 1.19-3.66) for fair KPS and 1.41 (95% CI 1.15-1.74) per 10-year increase in age. The c-statistic for the 12-month mortality model for the derivation cohort was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) and for the validation cohort was 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Our integrated prognostic model for 12-month mortality in patients with advanced CKD had good discrimination and calibration. This model provides prognostic information to aid nephrologists in identifying and counseling advanced CKD patients with poor prognosis who are facing the decision to initiate dialysis or pursue medical management without dialysis.

Integrating early palliative care into routine practice for patients with cancer: A mixed methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing evidence from controlled trials on benefits of early palliative care, there is a need for studies examining implementation in real-world settings. The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year real-world project that promoted early identification and support of patients with cancer who may benefit from palliative care. This study assesses feasibility, stakeholder experiences, and early impact of the INTEGRATE Project METHODS: The INTEGRATE Project was implemented in four cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, and consisted of interdisciplinary provider education and an integrated care model. Providers used the Surprise Question to identify patients for inclusion. A mixed methods evaluation of INTEGRATE was conducted using descriptive data, interviews with providers and managers, and provider surveys. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients with cancer (lung, glioblastoma, head and neck, gastrointestinal) were included. Results suggest improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care and to initiate the Advanced Care Planning (ACP) conversation. The majority of patients (85%) had an ACP or goals of care (GOC) conversation initiated within a mean time to conversation of 5-46 days (SD 20-93) across centers. A primary care report was transmitted to family doctors 48-100% of the time within a mean time to transmission of 7-54 days (SD 9-27) across centers. Enablers and barriers influencing success of the model were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care for patients with cancer can be integrated into the routine practice of oncology providers, with appropriate education, integration into existing clinical workflows, and administrative support.

An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the "Surprise Question": a study protocol.

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.

COPD patients in need of palliative care: Identification after hospitalization through the surprise question.

Currently, few patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who might benefit from a palliative care approach are referred to a palliative care team. Tools to identify patients eligible for a palliative care approach have been found to be difficult to apply in daily practice. Therefore, there is need for a simple and easily applicable tool to identify those patients who would benefit from referral to a palliative care team. The aim of this study was to determine if the surprise question (SQ) "Would I be surprised if this patient dies within 12 months?" in a subset of recently hospitalized COPD patients identifies those subjects. Recently hospitalized COPD patients were included, and the answer to the SQ was provided by the treating pulmonologist. The gold standards framework (GSF) prognostic indicator guidance was regarded as the gold standard test and was assessed for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were calculated to determine the accuracy of the SQ plus recent hospitalization compared to the variables of the GSF. A total of 93 patients were analyzed. In 35 patients (38%), the answer to the SQ was "not surprised"; 78 patients (84%) met ≥1 criteria of the GSF (15 (16%) did not meet any criteria). Specificity and positive predictive value for the SQ were both 100% ((78.2-100) and (87.7-100), respectively). Sensitivity was 44.9% (33.7-56.5) and negative predictive value was 25.9% (22.2-29.9). The "not surprised" group fulfilled significantly more GSF criteria. The SQ after recent hospitalization for COPD has a very high specificity compared to a standardized tool and is therefore a useful tool for the quick identification of patients who are most likely to benefit from palliative care. However, this method doesn't identify all patients who are eligible for referral to palliative care.

Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes.

BACKGROUND: In our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most significant challenges is to assess the right moment to start anticipatory palliative care. The "Surprise Question" (SQ1: "Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months"?), if answered with "no", is an easy tool to apply in identifying patients in need of palliative care. However, this tool has a low specificity. Therefore, the aim of our pilot study was to determine if adding a second, more specific "Surprise Question" (SQ2: "Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months"?) in case SQ1 is answered in the negative, prompts GPs to plan for anticipatory palliative care. METHODS: By randomization, 28 GPs in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands were allocated to three different groups. They all received a questionnaire with four vignettes, respectively representing patients with advanced organ failure (A), end stage cancer (B), frailty (C), and recently diagnosed cancer (D). GPs in the first group did not receive additional information, the second group received SQ1 after each vignette, and the third group received SQ1 and SQ2 after each vignette. We rated their answers based on essential components of palliative care (here called RADIANT score). RESULTS: GPs in group 3 gave higher RADIANT scores to those vignettes in which they would be surprised if the patients were still alive after 12 months. In all groups, vignette B had the highest mean RADIANT score, followed by vignettes A and C, and the lowest on vignette D. Seventy-one percent of GPs in groups 2 and 3 considered SQ1 a helpful tool, and 75% considered SQ2 helpful. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative pilot study indicates that the majority of GPs think SQ2 is a helpful additional tool. The combination of the two "Surprise Questions" encourages GPs to make more specific plans for anticipatory palliative care.

How accurate is the 'Surprise Question' at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The 'Surprise Question' (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality. METHODS: Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6-80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7-86.3). CONCLUSIONS: There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016046564 .

Performance of the Surprise Question Compared to Prediction Models in Hemodialysis Patients: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The surprise question (SQ) ("Would you be surprised if this patient were still alive in 6 or 12 months?") is used as a mortality prognostication tool in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We compared the performance of the SQ with that of prediction models (PMs) for 6- and 12-month mortality prediction. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and dialysis treatment indicators were used to model 6- and 12-month mortality probability in a HD patients training cohort (n = 6,633) using generalized linear models (GLMs). A total of 10 nephrologists from 5 HD clinics responded to the SQ in 215 patients followed prospectively for 12 months. The performance of PM was evaluated in the validation (n = 6,634) and SQ cohorts (n = 215) using the areas under receiver operating characteristics curves. We compared sensitivities and specificities of PM and SQ. RESULTS: The PM and SQ cohorts comprised 13,267 (mean age 61 years, 55% men, 54% whites) and 215 (mean age 62 years, 59% men, 50% whites) patients, respectively. During the 12-month follow-up, 1,313 patients died in the prediction model cohort and 22 in the SQ cohort. For 6-month mortality prediction, the GLM had areas under the curve of 0.77 in the validation cohort and 0.77 in the SQ cohort. As for 12-month mortality, areas under the curve were 0.77 and 0.80 in the validation and SQ cohorts, respectively. The 6- and 12-month PMs had sensitivities of 0.62 (95% CI 0.35-0.88) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.56-0.94), respectively. The 6- and 12-month SQ sensitivities were 0.23 (95% CI 0.002-0.46) and 0.35 (95% CI 0.14-0.56), respectively. CONCLUSION: PMs exhibit superior sensitivity compared to the SQ for mortality prognostication in HD patients.

The 'surprise' question in advanced cancer patients: A prospective study among general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Using the 'surprise' question 'Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year?' may improve physicians' prognostic accuracy and identify people appropriate for palliative care. AIM: Determine the prognostic accuracy of general practitioners asking the 'surprise' question about their patients with advanced (stage IV) cancer. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2011 and February 2012, 42 of 50 randomly selected general practitioners (Bologna area, Italy) prospectively classified 231 patients diagnosed with advanced cancer according to the 'surprise' question and supplied the status of each patient 1 year later. RESULTS: Of the 231 patients, general practitioners responded 'No' to the 'surprise' question for 126 (54.5%) and 'Yes' for 105 (45.5%). After 12 months, 104 (45.0%) patients had died; 87 (83.7%) were in the 'No' group. The sensitivity of the 'surprise' question was 69.3%; the specificity was 83.6%. Positive predictive value was 83.8%; negative predictive value was 69.0%. The answer to the 'surprise' question was significantly correlated with survival at 1 year. Patients in the 'No' group had an odds ratio of 11.55 (95% confidence interval: 5.83-23.28) and a hazard ratio of 6.99 (95% confidence interval: 3.75-13.03) of being dead in the next year compared to patients in the 'Yes' group (p = 0.000 for both odds ratio and hazard ratio). CONCLUSION: When general practitioners used the 'surprise' question for their patients with advanced cancer, the accuracy of survival prognosis was very high. This has clinical potential as a method to identify patients who might benefit from palliative care.