Identification of Palliative Care Needs in Cancer Patients in a Surgical Emergency Center

Dogbey, Dennis Makafui; Burger, Henriette; Edge, Jenny; Mihalik, M; Savieri, Perseverence

doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.08.008

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirteen studies assessed the performance of the Surprise Question over time periods shorter than 1 year. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] In these studies, the prompt successfully predicted death in 69% of cases (sensitivity 0.69 (0.56 to 0.82) I 2 =99.3%) and successfully predicted survival in 65% (specificity 0.65 ((0.49 Sensitivity (the ability of the prompt to successfully identify those patients who were dying); specificity (the ability of the prompt to successfully identify those who were not dying); positive predictive value (the proportion of patients who died when the respondent predicted death); negative predictive value (the proportion of the patients who survived when the respondent predicted survival); accuracy (the proportion of correct predictions among all cases). to 0.81) I 2 =99.9%).…”

Section: Accuracy According To Follow-up Periodmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Gupta,

Burgess,

Drozd

et al. 2024

BMJ Support Palliat Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Surprise Question, ‘Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?’ is a simple tool that can be used by clinicians to identify people within the last year of life. This review aimed to determine the accuracy of this assessment, across different healthcare settings, specialties, follow-up periods and respondents.MethodsSearches were conducted of Medline, Embase, AMED, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until 01 January 2024. Studies were included if they reported original data on the ability of the Surprise Question to predict survival. For each study (including subgroups), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were determined.ResultsOur dataset comprised 56 distinct cohorts, including 68 829 patients. In a pooled analysis, the sensitivity of the Surprise Question was 0.69 ((0.64 to 0.74) I2=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I2=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I2=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I2=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I2=99.3%). The prompt performed best in populations with high event rates, shorter timeframes and when posed to more experienced respondents.ConclusionsThe Surprise Question demonstrated modest accuracy with considerable heterogeneity across the population to which it was applied and to whom it was posed. Prospective studies should test whether the prompt can facilitate timely access to palliative care services, as originally envisioned.PROSPERO registration numberCRD32022298236.

show abstract

Section: Accuracy According To Follow-up Periodmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Gupta,

Burgess,

Drozd

et al. 2024

BMJ Support Palliat Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Validation of a Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool Among Patients Hospitalized Due to Heart Failure

HAMATANI,

TERAMOTO,

IKEYAMA-HIDESHIMA

et al. 2024

Journal of Cardiac Failure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palliative care screening tools and patient outcomes: a systematic review

Zhang,

Zhao,

Peng

2024

BMJ Support Palliat Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPalliative care (PC) refers to providing patients with physical, psychological, mental, and other care and humanistic care services in a multidisciplinary collaborative mode with end-of-stage patients and family members as the centre. The PC screening tool (PCST) was developed to identify individuals who may benefit from PC services and is widely assumed to improve patient outcomes.ObjectivesThe purpose is to understand which specific PCST has been applied to clinical patients and to analyse and summarise the impact of using these tools on patient outcomes.MethodsA systematic review of articles published on PCST was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and MEDLINE in January 2024. All original research articles on PCST fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included (1) utilisation and evaluation of tools was the primary objective and (2) at least one patient outcome was reported.ResultsA total of 22 studies were included, 12 studies used a prospective study, 4 studies used a non-RCT and 6 studies used an RCT. The studies were heterogeneous regarding study characteristics, especially patient outcomes. In total, 24 different patient outcomes were measured, of which 16 outcomes measured in 12 studies significantly improved.ConclusionsWe found that the majority of included studies reported that implementing PCST can improve patient outcomes to some extent, especially when used to improve in reducing hospitalisation time and patient readmission rate. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on this widely used screening tool.

show abstract

Identification of Palliative Care Needs in Cancer Patients in a Surgical Emergency Center

Cited by 3 publications

References 31 publications

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Validation of a Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool Among Patients Hospitalized Due to Heart Failure

Palliative care screening tools and patient outcomes: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About