Cargando…
An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol
BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) “would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?” has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is uncl...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461816/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30979361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0413-x |
_version_ | 1783410541236060160 |
---|---|
author | White, Nicola Oostendorp, Linda Vickerstaff, Victoria Gerlach, Christina Engels, Yvonne Maessen, Maud Tomlinson, Christopher Wens, Johan Leysen, Bert Biasco, Guido Zambrano, Sofia Eychmüller, Steffen Avgerinou, Christina Chattat, Rabih Ottoboni, Giovanni Veldhoven, Carel Stone, Patrick |
author_facet | White, Nicola Oostendorp, Linda Vickerstaff, Victoria Gerlach, Christina Engels, Yvonne Maessen, Maud Tomlinson, Christopher Wens, Johan Leysen, Bert Biasco, Guido Zambrano, Sofia Eychmüller, Steffen Avgerinou, Christina Chattat, Rabih Ottoboni, Giovanni Veldhoven, Carel Stone, Patrick |
author_sort | White, Nicola |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) “would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?” has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question (“Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?”) alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions. METHODS: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance – 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A “surprise threshold” for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance. DISCUSSION: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-019-0413-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6461816 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64618162019-04-22 An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol White, Nicola Oostendorp, Linda Vickerstaff, Victoria Gerlach, Christina Engels, Yvonne Maessen, Maud Tomlinson, Christopher Wens, Johan Leysen, Bert Biasco, Guido Zambrano, Sofia Eychmüller, Steffen Avgerinou, Christina Chattat, Rabih Ottoboni, Giovanni Veldhoven, Carel Stone, Patrick BMC Palliat Care Study Protocol BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) “would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?” has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question (“Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?”) alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions. METHODS: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance – 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A “surprise threshold” for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance. DISCUSSION: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-019-0413-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6461816/ /pubmed/30979361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0413-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 | Study Protocol White, Nicola Oostendorp, Linda Vickerstaff, Victoria Gerlach, Christina Engels, Yvonne Maessen, Maud Tomlinson, Christopher Wens, Johan Leysen, Bert Biasco, Guido Zambrano, Sofia Eychmüller, Steffen Avgerinou, Christina Chattat, Rabih Ottoboni, Giovanni Veldhoven, Carel Stone, Patrick An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol |
title | An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol |
title_full | An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol |
title_fullStr | An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol |
title_short | An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “Surprise Question”: a study protocol |
title_sort | online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the “surprise question”: a study protocol |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461816/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30979361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0413-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT whitenicola anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT oostendorplinda anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT vickerstaffvictoria anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT gerlachchristina anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT engelsyvonne anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT maessenmaud anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT tomlinsonchristopher anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT wensjohan anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT leysenbert anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT biascoguido anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT zambranosofia anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT eychmullersteffen anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT avgerinouchristina anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT chattatrabih anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT ottobonigiovanni anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT veldhovencarel anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT stonepatrick anonlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT whitenicola onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT oostendorplinda onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT vickerstaffvictoria onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT gerlachchristina onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT engelsyvonne onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT maessenmaud onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT tomlinsonchristopher onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT wensjohan onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT leysenbert onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT biascoguido onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT zambranosofia onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT eychmullersteffen onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT avgerinouchristina onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT chattatrabih onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT ottobonigiovanni onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT veldhovencarel onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol AT stonepatrick onlineinternationalcomparisonofthresholdsfortriggeringanegativeresponsetothesurprisequestionastudyprotocol |