Using intuition or a formal palliative care needs assessment screening process in general practice to predict death within 12 months: A randomised controlled trial

Author:

Mitchell Geoffrey K1,Senior Hugh E12,Rhee Joel J34,Ware Robert S5,Young Sharleen16,Teo Patrick CK4,Murray Scott7,Boyd Kirsty7,Clayton Josephine M89

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Medicine of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia

2. College of Health, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

3. HammondCare Centre for Positive Ageing and Care, Sydney, NSW, Australia

4. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

5. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia

6. West Moreton Hospital and Health Service, Ipswich, QLD, Australia

7. Primary Palliative Care Research Group, The Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

8. HammondCare Palliative and Supportive Care Service, Greenwich Hospital, Greenwich, NSW, Australia

9. School of Medicine, Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Abstract

Background: Population ageing will lead to more deaths with an uncertain trajectory. Identifying patients at risk of dying could facilitate more effective care planning. Aim: To determine whether screening for likely death within 12 months is more effective using screening tools or intuition. Design: Randomised controlled trial of screening tools (Surprise Question plus the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for Surprise Question positive patients) to predict those at risk of death at 12 months compared with unguided intuition (clinical trials registry: ACTRN12613000266763). Setting/participants: Australian general practice. A total of 30 general practitioners (screening tool = 12, intuition = 18) screened all patients ( n = 4365) aged ≥70 years seen at least once in the last 2 years. Results: There were 142 deaths (screening tool = 3.1%, intuition = 3.3%; p = 0.79). General practitioners identified more at risk of dying using Surprise Question (11.8%) than intuition (5.4%; p = 0.01), but no difference with Surprise Question positive then Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (5.1%; p = 0.87). Surprise Question positive predicted more deaths (53.2%, intuition = 33.7%; p = 0.001), but Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool predictions were similar (5.1%; p = 0.87 vs intuition). There was no difference in proportions correctly predicted to die (Surprise Question = 1.6%, intuition = 1.1%; p = 0.156 and Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool = 1.1%; p = 0.86 vs intuition). Screening tool had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than intuition, but no difference in positive or negative predictive value. Conclusion: Screening tool was better at predicting actual death than intuition, but with a higher false positive rate. Both were similarly effective at screening the whole cohort for death. Screening for possible death is not the best option for initiating end-of-life planning: recognising increased burden of illness might be a better trigger.

Funder

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3