Cargando…

Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes

BACKGROUND: In our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weijers, F., Veldhoven, C., Verhagen, C., Vissers, K., Engels, Y.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29673361
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0312-6
_version_ 1783315854640807936
author Weijers, F.
Veldhoven, C.
Verhagen, C.
Vissers, K.
Engels, Y.
author_facet Weijers, F.
Veldhoven, C.
Verhagen, C.
Vissers, K.
Engels, Y.
author_sort Weijers, F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most significant challenges is to assess the right moment to start anticipatory palliative care. The “Surprise Question” (SQ1: “Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months”?), if answered with “no”, is an easy tool to apply in identifying patients in need of palliative care. However, this tool has a low specificity. Therefore, the aim of our pilot study was to determine if adding a second, more specific “Surprise Question” (SQ2: “Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months”?) in case SQ1 is answered in the negative, prompts GPs to plan for anticipatory palliative care. METHODS: By randomization, 28 GPs in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands were allocated to three different groups. They all received a questionnaire with four vignettes, respectively representing patients with advanced organ failure (A), end stage cancer (B), frailty (C), and recently diagnosed cancer (D). GPs in the first group did not receive additional information, the second group received SQ1 after each vignette, and the third group received SQ1 and SQ2 after each vignette. We rated their answers based on essential components of palliative care (here called RADIANT score). RESULTS: GPs in group 3 gave higher RADIANT scores to those vignettes in which they would be surprised if the patients were still alive after 12 months. In all groups, vignette B had the highest mean RADIANT score, followed by vignettes A and C, and the lowest on vignette D. Seventy-one percent of GPs in groups 2 and 3 considered SQ1 a helpful tool, and 75% considered SQ2 helpful. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative pilot study indicates that the majority of GPs think SQ2 is a helpful additional tool. The combination of the two “Surprise Questions” encourages GPs to make more specific plans for anticipatory palliative care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0312-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5909217
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59092172018-04-30 Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes Weijers, F. Veldhoven, C. Verhagen, C. Vissers, K. Engels, Y. BMC Palliat Care Research Article BACKGROUND: In our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most significant challenges is to assess the right moment to start anticipatory palliative care. The “Surprise Question” (SQ1: “Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months”?), if answered with “no”, is an easy tool to apply in identifying patients in need of palliative care. However, this tool has a low specificity. Therefore, the aim of our pilot study was to determine if adding a second, more specific “Surprise Question” (SQ2: “Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months”?) in case SQ1 is answered in the negative, prompts GPs to plan for anticipatory palliative care. METHODS: By randomization, 28 GPs in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands were allocated to three different groups. They all received a questionnaire with four vignettes, respectively representing patients with advanced organ failure (A), end stage cancer (B), frailty (C), and recently diagnosed cancer (D). GPs in the first group did not receive additional information, the second group received SQ1 after each vignette, and the third group received SQ1 and SQ2 after each vignette. We rated their answers based on essential components of palliative care (here called RADIANT score). RESULTS: GPs in group 3 gave higher RADIANT scores to those vignettes in which they would be surprised if the patients were still alive after 12 months. In all groups, vignette B had the highest mean RADIANT score, followed by vignettes A and C, and the lowest on vignette D. Seventy-one percent of GPs in groups 2 and 3 considered SQ1 a helpful tool, and 75% considered SQ2 helpful. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative pilot study indicates that the majority of GPs think SQ2 is a helpful additional tool. The combination of the two “Surprise Questions” encourages GPs to make more specific plans for anticipatory palliative care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0312-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5909217/ /pubmed/29673361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0312-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Weijers, F.
Veldhoven, C.
Verhagen, C.
Vissers, K.
Engels, Y.
Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes
title Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes
title_full Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes
title_fullStr Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes
title_full_unstemmed Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes
title_short Adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot RCT with cage vignettes
title_sort adding a second surprise question triggers general practitioners to increase the thoroughness of palliative care planning: results of a pilot rct with cage vignettes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29673361
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0312-6
work_keys_str_mv AT weijersf addingasecondsurprisequestiontriggersgeneralpractitionerstoincreasethethoroughnessofpalliativecareplanningresultsofapilotrctwithcagevignettes
AT veldhovenc addingasecondsurprisequestiontriggersgeneralpractitionerstoincreasethethoroughnessofpalliativecareplanningresultsofapilotrctwithcagevignettes
AT verhagenc addingasecondsurprisequestiontriggersgeneralpractitionerstoincreasethethoroughnessofpalliativecareplanningresultsofapilotrctwithcagevignettes
AT vissersk addingasecondsurprisequestiontriggersgeneralpractitionerstoincreasethethoroughnessofpalliativecareplanningresultsofapilotrctwithcagevignettes
AT engelsy addingasecondsurprisequestiontriggersgeneralpractitionerstoincreasethethoroughnessofpalliativecareplanningresultsofapilotrctwithcagevignettes