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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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