Evaluation and comparison of two prognostic scores and the physicians’ estimate of survival in terminally ill patients

BACKGROUND: Most terminally ill patients request information about their remaining life span. Professionals are not generally willing to provide prognosis on survival, even though they are expected to be able to do so from their clinical experience. This study aims to find out whether the standardized instruments Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP-S) are appropriate, specific, and sensitive to estimate survival time in patients receiving inpatient palliative care in Germany. METHOD: PPI and PaP-S were assessed in addition to the core documentation data set of the Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation for patients admitted to the palliative care units in Aachen, Bonn, and Cologne. Time of survival was assessed with repeated phone calls to the family and was defined as the difference between the day of completion of the instruments (excluded) and the day of death (included). RESULTS: Survival time was compared with physicians’ estimations and prognostic scores in 83 patients. Whereas the estimates of the PPI and the PaP-S correlate highly, even higher correlations are found for the physicians’ prognosis and the scores. Correlations between survival time and the prognostic scores or physicians’ prognosis were lower. Physicians’ estimations overestimated survival time on average fourfold. Estimations were more often correct for very good and very bad prognosis. DISCUSSION: The prognostic scores are not able to produce a precise reliable prognosis for the individual patient. Nevertheless, they can be used for ethical decision making and team discussions. Estimating survival time from clinical experience seems to be easier for very bad or very good prognosis for physicians.