Samir A Haydar1, Lisa Almeder2, Lauren Michalakes3, Paul K J Han4, Tania D Strout1. 1. 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine , Portland, Maine. 2. 2 Maine Medical Partners Hospital Medicine , Maine Medical Partners Internal Medicine, Portland, Maine. 3. 3 Hospice and Palliative Care, Pen Bay Medical Center , Rockport, Maine. 4. 4 Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute , Portland, Maine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The surprise question (SQ), "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" is effective in identifying end-stage renal disease and cancer patients at high risk of death and therefore potentially unmet palliative care needs. Following implementation of the SQ in our acute care setting, we sought to explore hospital-based providers' perceptions of the tool. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) providers' perceptions regarding the feasibility of SQ use in emergency and inpatient settings, (2) clinician perceptions regarding the utility of the SQ, and (3) barriers to SQ use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of medical providers following addition of the SQ to the electronic record for all patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: A total of 111/203 (55%) providers participated: 48/57 (84%) emergency physicians (EPs) and 63/146 (43%) inpatient providers (IPs). Most reported no difficulty using the SQ. Modest numbers in both groups reported that the SQ influenced care delivery (EPs 37%, IPs 42%) as well as goals of care (EPs 45%, IPs 52%). At least some advance care planning discussions were prompted by the SQ (EPs 45%, IPs 58%). Team discussions were influenced by SQ use for more than half of each group. Most respondents (55%) expressed some concern that their SQ responses could be inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, clinicians indicated that use of the SQ is feasible, acceptable, and useful in facilitating advance care planning discussions among teams, patients, and families. Many reported that SQ use influenced goals of care, but concern regarding accuracy was a barrier. Additional research examining SQ accuracy and predictive ability is warranted.
BACKGROUND: The surprise question (SQ), "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" is effective in identifying end-stage renal disease and cancerpatients at high risk of death and therefore potentially unmet palliative care needs. Following implementation of the SQ in our acute care setting, we sought to explore hospital-based providers' perceptions of the tool. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) providers' perceptions regarding the feasibility of SQ use in emergency and inpatient settings, (2) clinician perceptions regarding the utility of the SQ, and (3) barriers to SQ use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of medical providers following addition of the SQ to the electronic record for all patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: A total of 111/203 (55%) providers participated: 48/57 (84%) emergency physicians (EPs) and 63/146 (43%) inpatient providers (IPs). Most reported no difficulty using the SQ. Modest numbers in both groups reported that the SQ influenced care delivery (EPs 37%, IPs 42%) as well as goals of care (EPs 45%, IPs 52%). At least some advance care planning discussions were prompted by the SQ (EPs 45%, IPs 58%). Team discussions were influenced by SQ use for more than half of each group. Most respondents (55%) expressed some concern that their SQ responses could be inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, clinicians indicated that use of the SQ is feasible, acceptable, and useful in facilitating advance care planning discussions among teams, patients, and families. Many reported that SQ use influenced goals of care, but concern regarding accuracy was a barrier. Additional research examining SQ accuracy and predictive ability is warranted.
Authors: Kei Ouchi; Guru Jambaulikar; Naomi R George; Wanlu Xu; Ziad Obermeyer; Emily L Aaronson; Jeremiah D Schuur; Mara A Schonberg; James A Tulsky; Susan D Block Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Dana Tripp; Jaclyn Janis; Benjamin Jarrett; F Lee Lucas; Tania D Strout; Paul K J Han; Isabella Stumpf; Rebecca N Hutchinson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Markus Ebke; Andreas Koch; Kim Dillen; Ingrid Becker; Raymond Voltz; Heidrun Golla Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Alina Kasdorf; Gloria Dust; Vera Vennedey; Christian Rietz; Maria C Polidori; Raymond Voltz; Julia Strupp Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Laura Gaffney; Agnes Jonsson; Conor Judge; Maria Costello; John O'Donnell; Rónán O'Caoimh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Victor Wei-Che Shen; Che Yang; Li-Ling Lai; Ying-Ju Chen; Hsien-Hao Huang; Shih-Hung Tsai; Teh-Fu Hsu; David Hung-Tsang Yen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390