Literature DB >> 27815556

Utility of the NECPAL CCOMS-ICO© tool and the Surprise Question as screening tools for early palliative care and to predict mortality in patients with advanced chronic conditions: A cohort study.

Xavier Gómez-Batiste1,2, Marisa Martínez-Muñoz1,2, Carles Blay2,3, Jordi Amblàs2,4, Laura Vila2,5, Xavier Costa2,5, Joan Espaulella2,4, Alicia Villanueva6, Ramon Oller7, Joan Carles Martori7, Carles Constante8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) identifies patients with palliative care needs. The NECPAL CCOMS-ICO© (NECPAL) tool combines the Surprise Question with additional clinical parameters for a more comprehensive assessment. The capacity of these screening tools to predict mortality is still unknown. AIM: To explore the predictive validity of the NECPAL and SQ to determine 12- to 24-month mortality.
DESIGN: Longitudinal, prospective and observational cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Three primary care centres, one general hospital, one intermediate care centre, and four nursing homes. Population cohort with advanced chronic conditions and limited life prognosis. Patients were classified according to SQ and NECPAL criteria and followed for 24 months.
RESULTS: Data available to assess 1059 of 1064 recruited patients (99.6%) at 12 and 24 months: 837 patients were SQ+ and 780 were NECPAL+. Mortality rates at 24 months were as follows: 44.6% (SQ+) versus 15.8% (SQ-) and 45.8% (NECPAL+) versus 18.3% (NECPAL-) ( p = 0.000). SQ+ and NECPAL+ identification was significantly correlated with 24-month mortality risk (hazard ratios: 2.719 and 2.398, respectively). Both tools were highly sensitive (91.4, CI: 88.7-94.1 and 87.5, CI: 84.3-90.7) with high negative predictive values (84.2, CI: 79.4-89.0 and 81.7, CI: 77.2-86.2), with low specificity and positive predictive value. The prognostic accuracy of SQ and NECPAL was 52.9% and 55.2%, respectively. The predictive validity was slightly better for NECPAL.
CONCLUSION: SQ and NECPAL are valuable screening instruments to identify patients with limited life prognosis who may require palliative care. More research is needed to increase its prognostic utility in combination with other parameters.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Palliative care; health services needs and demands; mortality; patient care planning; prognosis; risk assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27815556     DOI: 10.1177/0269216316676647

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Palliat Med        ISSN: 0269-2163            Impact factor:   4.762


  30 in total

1.  About the "surprise question".

Authors:  Massimo Costantini; Irene J Higginson; Domenico F Merlo; Silvia Di Leo; Silvia Tanzi
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Response to: "About the 'surprise question'".

Authors:  James Downar; Russell Goldman; Ruxandra Pinto; Marina Englesakis; Neill K J Adhikari
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  The authors respond to "The utility and value of the 'surprise question' for patients with serious illness".

Authors:  James Downar; Russell Goldman; Ruxandra Pinto; Marina Englesakis; Neill Adhikari
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Prioritizing Primary Care Patients for a Communication Intervention Using the "Surprise Question": a Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Joshua R Lakin; Margaret G Robinson; Ziad Obermeyer; Brian W Powers; Susan D Block; Rebecca Cunningham; Joseph M Tumblin; Christine Vogeli; Rachelle E Bernacki
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Improving medication adherence and effective prescribing through a patient-centered prescription model in patients with multimorbidity.

Authors:  J González-Bueno; D Sevilla-Sánchez; E Puigoriol-Juvanteny; N Molist-Brunet; C Codina-Jané; J Espaulella-Panicot
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Palliative Care for Patients with End-Stage, Non-Oncologic Diseases-A Retrospective Study in Three Public Palliative Care Departments in Northern Italy.

Authors:  Massimo Romanò; Sabina Oldani; Valter Reina; Michele Sofia; Claudia Castiglioni
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-02

7.  Systematic vs. on-demand early palliative care in gastric cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial assessing patient and healthcare service outcomes.

Authors:  Emanuela Scarpi; Monia Dall'Agata; Vittorina Zagonel; Teresa Gamucci; Raffaella Bertè; Elisabetta Sansoni; Elena Amaducci; Chiara Maria Broglia; Sara Alquati; Ferdinando Garetto; Stefania Schiavon; Silvia Quadrini; Elena Orlandi; Andrea Casadei Gardini; Silvia Ruscelli; Daris Ferrari; Maria Simona Pino; Roberto Bortolussi; Federica Negri; Silvia Stragliotto; Filomena Narducci; Martina Valgiusti; Alberto Farolfi; Oriana Nanni; Romina Rossi; Marco Maltoni
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Goals-of-care discussions.

Authors:  Catherine Saiki; Betty Ferrell; Denise Longo-Schoeberlein; Vincent Chung; Thomas J Smith
Journal:  J Community Support Oncol       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

9.  Early Palliative Care Is Associated With Reduced Emergency Department Utilization in Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Jack Bevins; Nizar Bhulani; Suleyman Y Goksu; Nina N Sanford; Ang Gao; Chul Ahn; Mary E Paulk; Stephanie Terauchi; Sandi L Pruitt; Anna Tavakkoli; Ramona L Rhodes; Syed M A Kazmi; Muhammad S Beg
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.787

10.  Facilitating advance care planning in the general practice setting for patients with a chronic, life-limiting illness: protocol for a phase-III cluster-randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of the ACP-GP intervention.

Authors:  Koen Pardon; Aline De Vleminck; Julie Stevens; Peter Pype; Kim Eecloo; Luc Deliens
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.234

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.