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 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 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.

Is the 1-day surprise question a useful screening tool for predicting prognosis in patients with advanced cancer?-a multicenter prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

For cancer patients nearing death, the prediction of their prognosis by physicians is crucial. This study examined the usefulness of the 1-Day Surprise Question (1DSQ).

METHODS

This study was conducted as part of a multicenter prospective observational study. The physicians answered the 1DSQ "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 1 day?" when patients have palliative performance scale (PPS) ≤20. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the 1DSQ. Moreover, using multivariate analysis, we evaluated the characteristics of patients who died among those whose physicians answered the 1DSQ as "not surprised".

RESULTS

Overall, 1,896 patients were enrolled, and 1,411 (74.4%) were analyzed between January and December 2017. Among these, 847 (60.0%) patients were placed in the "not surprised" group. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the 1DSQ were 82.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 77.5-85.8%], 45.5% (95% CI: 44.4-46.4%), 27.4% (95% CI: 25.9-28.7%), and 91.0% (95% CI: 88.9-92.9%), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that urine output over last 12 hours <100 mL, decreased response to visual stimuli, respiration with mandibular movement, pulselessness of radial artery, and saturation of percutaneous oxygen <90% were characteristics of patients who died as predicted by the physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1DSQ is a helpful screening tool for identifying cancer patients with impending death.

"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.

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.

Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting

OBJECTIVE

Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days" could predict in-hospital mortality and resource utilization for hospitalized emergency department patients.

METHODS

For this observational study, emergency physicians responded to the modified surprise question with each admission over a five-month study period. Logistic regression analyses were completed and standard test characteristics evaluated.

RESULTS

6,122 visits were evaluated. Emergency physicians responded negatively to the modified surprise question in 918 (15.1%). Test characteristics for in-hospital mortality were: sensitivity 32%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 6%, negative predictive value 98%. The risk of intensive care unit use (relative risk [RR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 2.40), use of 'comfort measures' orders (RR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.81 to 4.18), palliative-care consultation (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.62 to 3.56), and in-hospital mortality (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.76) were greater for patients with negative responses.

CONCLUSION

The modified surprise question is a simple trigger for palliative care needs, accurately identifying those at greater risk for in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. With a negative predictive value of 98%, affirmative responses to the modified surprise question provide reassurance that in-hospital death is unlikely.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0312-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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 .