Cargando…

Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting

OBJECTIVE: Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, “Would you be surprised if this patient died in the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haydar, Samir A., Strout, Tania D., Bond, Alicia G., Han, Paul KJ
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944292
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.17.293
_version_ 1783409425828020224
author Haydar, Samir A.
Strout, Tania D.
Bond, Alicia G.
Han, Paul KJ
author_facet Haydar, Samir A.
Strout, Tania D.
Bond, Alicia G.
Han, Paul KJ
author_sort Haydar, Samir A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, “Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days” could predict in-hospital mortality and resource utilization for hospitalized emergency department patients. METHODS: For this observational study, emergency physicians responded to the modified surprise question with each admission over a five-month study period. Logistic regression analyses were completed and standard test characteristics evaluated. RESULTS: 6,122 visits were evaluated. Emergency physicians responded negatively to the modified surprise question in 918 (15.1%). Test characteristics for in-hospital mortality were: sensitivity 32%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 6%, negative predictive value 98%. The risk of intensive care unit use (relative risk [RR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 2.40), use of ‘comfort measures’ orders (RR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.81 to 4.18), palliative-care consultation (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.62 to 3.56), and in-hospital mortality (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.76) were greater for patients with negative responses. CONCLUSION: The modified surprise question is a simple trigger for palliative care needs, accurately identifying those at greater risk for in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. With a negative predictive value of 98%, affirmative responses to the modified surprise question provide reassurance that in-hospital death is unlikely.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6453688
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64536882019-04-17 Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting Haydar, Samir A. Strout, Tania D. Bond, Alicia G. Han, Paul KJ Clin Exp Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, “Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days” could predict in-hospital mortality and resource utilization for hospitalized emergency department patients. METHODS: For this observational study, emergency physicians responded to the modified surprise question with each admission over a five-month study period. Logistic regression analyses were completed and standard test characteristics evaluated. RESULTS: 6,122 visits were evaluated. Emergency physicians responded negatively to the modified surprise question in 918 (15.1%). Test characteristics for in-hospital mortality were: sensitivity 32%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 6%, negative predictive value 98%. The risk of intensive care unit use (relative risk [RR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 2.40), use of ‘comfort measures’ orders (RR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.81 to 4.18), palliative-care consultation (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.62 to 3.56), and in-hospital mortality (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.76) were greater for patients with negative responses. CONCLUSION: The modified surprise question is a simple trigger for palliative care needs, accurately identifying those at greater risk for in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. With a negative predictive value of 98%, affirmative responses to the modified surprise question provide reassurance that in-hospital death is unlikely. The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2019-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6453688/ /pubmed/30944292 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.17.293 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Haydar, Samir A.
Strout, Tania D.
Bond, Alicia G.
Han, Paul KJ
Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
title Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
title_full Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
title_fullStr Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
title_short Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
title_sort prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944292
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.17.293
work_keys_str_mv AT haydarsamira prognosticvalueofamodifiedsurprisequestiondesignedforuseintheemergencydepartmentsetting
AT strouttaniad prognosticvalueofamodifiedsurprisequestiondesignedforuseintheemergencydepartmentsetting
AT bondaliciag prognosticvalueofamodifiedsurprisequestiondesignedforuseintheemergencydepartmentsetting
AT hanpaulkj prognosticvalueofamodifiedsurprisequestiondesignedforuseintheemergencydepartmentsetting