Literature DB >> 29260612

Using the "Surprise Question" in Nursing Homes: A Prospective Mixed-Methods Study.

Jill Rice1, Linda Hunter2, Amy T Hsu3,4,5, Melissa Donskov1, Tracy Luciani1, Darene Toal-Sullivan6, Vivian Welch3,4,6, Peter Tanuseputro3,6,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The "Surprise Question" (SQ) is often used to identify patients who may benefit from a palliative care approach. The time frame of the typical question (a 12-month prognosis) may be unsuitable for identifying residents in nursing homes since it may not be able to differentiate between those who have a more imminent risk of death within a cohort of patients with high care needs.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy and acceptability of 3 versions of the SQ with shortened prognostication time frames (3 months, 6 months, and "the next season") in the nursing home setting.
DESIGN: A prospective mixed-methods study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven health-care professionals completed the SQ for 313 residents from a nursing home in Ontario, Canada. A chart audit was performed to evaluate the accuracy of their responses. Focus groups and interviews were conducted to examine the participants' perspectives on the utility of the SQ.
RESULTS: Of the 301 residents who were included in the analysis, 74 (24.6%) deaths were observed during our follow-up period. The probability of making an accurate prediction was highest when the seasonal SQ was used (66.7%), followed by the 6-month (58.9%) and 3-month (57.1%) versions. Despite its high accuracy, qualitative results suggest the staff felt the seasonal SQ was ambiguous and expressed discomfort with its use.
CONCLUSION: The SQ with shortened prognostication periods may be useful in nursing homes and provides a mechanism to facilitate discussions on palliative care. However, a better understanding of palliative care and increasing staff's comfort with prognostication is essential to a palliative care approach.

Entities:  

Keywords:  advance care planning; clinical decision-making; end-of-life care; long-term care; nursing homes; palliative care

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29260612     DOI: 10.1177/0825859717745728

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Palliat Care        ISSN: 0825-8597            Impact factor:   2.250


  5 in total

1.  The Surprise Question as a Prognostic Tool #360.

Authors:  Kate S Jennings; Sean Marks; Hillary D Lum
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.947

2.  Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Finly J Zachariah; Lorenzo A Rossi; Laura M Roberts; Linda D Bosserman
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

3.  The "Surprise Question" in Neurorehabilitation-Prognosis Estimation by Neurologist and Palliative Care Physician; a Longitudinal, Prospective, Observational Study.

Authors:  Markus Ebke; Andreas Koch; Kim Dillen; Ingrid Becker; Raymond Voltz; Heidrun Golla
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 4.003

4.  IDentification of patients in need of general and specialised PALLiative care (ID-PALL©): item generation, content and face validity of a new interprofessional screening instrument.

Authors:  Fabienne Teike Lüthi; Mathieu Bernard; Michel Beauverd; Claudia Gamondi; Anne-Sylvie Ramelet; Gian Domenico Borasio
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 3.234

5.  A New Approach to the Identification of Palliative Care Needs and Advanced Chronic Patients among Nursing Home Residents.

Authors:  Ana A Esteban-Burgos; María José Lozano-Terrón; Daniel Puente-Fernandez; César Hueso-Montoro; Rafael Montoya-Juárez; María P García-Caro
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.