OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of predictions of dying at different cut-off thresholds and to acknowledge the extent of clinical uncertainty.
DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study.
SETTING: An online prognostic test, accessible by eligible participants across the UK.
PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were members of the Association of Palliative Medicine. 99/166 completed the test (60%), resulting in 1980 estimates (99 participants × 20 summaries).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The probability of death occurring within 72 hours (0% certain survival-100% certain death) for 20 patient summaries. The estimates were analysed using five different thresholds: 50/50%, 40/60%, 30/70%, 20/80% and 10/90%, with percentage values between these extremes being regarded as 'indeterminate'. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the number of indeterminate cases were calculated for each cut-off.
RESULTS: Using a <50% versus >50% threshold produced a PPV of 62%, an NPV of 74% and 5% indeterminate cases. When the threshold was changed to =10% vs =90%, the PPV and NPV increased to 75% and 88%, respectively, at the expense of an increase of indeterminate cases up to 62%.
CONCLUSION: When doctors assign a very high (=90%) or very low (=10%) probability of imminent death, their prognostic accuracy is improved; however, this increases the number of ‘indeterminate’ cases. This suggests that clinical predictions may continue to have a role for routine prognostication but that other approaches (such as the use of prognostic scores) may be required for those cases where doctors’ estimates are indeterminate.
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.
OBJECTIVES: To identify a group of palliative care doctors who perform well on a prognostic test and to understand how they make their survival predictions.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study and two cross-sectional online studies.
SETTING: Phase I: an online prognostic test, developed from a prospective observational study of patients referred to palliative care. Phase II: an online judgement task consisting of 50 hypothetical vignettes.
PARTICIPANTS: All members of the Association of Palliative Medicine (APM) were eligible (n=~1100). 99 doctors completed the prognostic test and were included in the phase I analysis. The top 20% were invited to participate in phase II; 14/19 doctors completed the judgement task and were included in the phase II analysis.
MEASURES: Phase I: participants were asked to give a probability of death within 72 hours (0%â€“100%) for all 20 cases. Accuracy on the prognostic test was measured with the Brier score which was used to identify the â€˜expertâ€™ group (scale range: 0 (expert)â€“1 (non-expert)). Phase II: participants gave a probability of death within 72 hours (0%â€“100%). A mixed model regression analysis was completed using the percentage estimate as the outcome and the patient information included in the vignettes as the predictors.
RESULTS: The mean Brier score of all participants was 0.237 (95% CI 0.235 to 0.239). The mean Brier score of the â€˜expertsâ€™ was 0.184 (95% CI 0.176 to 0.192). Six of the seven prognostic variables included in the hypothetical vignettes were significantly associated with clinician predictions of death. The Palliative Performance Score was identified as being the most influential in the doctorsâ€™ prognostic decision making (ß=0.48, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified six clinical signs and symptoms which influenced the judgement policies of palliative care doctors. These results may be used to teach novice doctors how to improve their prognostic skills.
BACKGROUND: More accurate methods of prognostication are likely to lead to improvements in the quality of care of patients approaching the ends of their lives. The Prognosis in Palliative care Scales (PiPS) are prognostic models of survival. The scores are calculated using simple clinical data and observations. There are two separate PiPS models; PiPS-A for patients without blood test results and PiPS-B for patients with blood test results. Both models predict whether a patient is likely to live for "days", "weeks" or "months" and have been shown to perform as well as clinicians' estimates of survival. PiPS-B has also been found to be significantly better than doctors' estimates of survival. We report here a protocol for the validation of PiPS and for the evaluation of the accuracy of other prognostic tools in a new, larger cohort of patients with advanced cancer.
METHODS: This is a national, multi-centre, prospective, observational cohort study, aiming to recruit 1778 patients via palliative care services across England and Wales. Eligible patients have advanced, incurable cancer and have recently been referred to palliative care services. Patients with or without capacity are included in the study. The primary outcome is the accuracy of PiPS predictions and the difference in accuracy between these predictions and the clinicians' estimates of survival; with PiPS-B being the main model of interest. The secondary outcomes include the accuracy of predictions by the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic score (PaP) and the Feliu Prognostic Nomogram (FPN) compared with actual patient survival and clinicians' estimates of survival. A nested qualitative sub-study using face-to-face interviews with patients, carers and clinicians is also being undertaken to assess the acceptability of the prognostic models and to identify barriers and facilitators to clinical use.
DISCUSSION: The study closed to recruitment at the end of April 2018 having exceeded the required sample size of 1778 patients. The qualitative sub-study is nearing completion. This demonstrates the feasibility of recruiting large numbers of participants to a prospective palliative care study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13688211 (registration date: 28/06/2016).
Background: Increasing number of people are dying with advanced dementia. Comfort and quality of life are key goals of care
.Aims: To describe (1) physical and psychological symptoms, (2) health and social care service utilisation and (3) care at end of life in people with advanced dementia.
Design: 9-month prospective cohort study.
Setting and participants: Greater London, England, people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Scale 6e and above) from 14 nursing homes or their own homes.
Main outcome measures: At study entry and monthly: prescriptions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pressure sore risk/severity (Waterlow Scale/Stirling Scale, respectively), acute medical events, pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), quality of life (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale), resource use (Resource Utilization in Dementia Questionnaire and Client Services Receipt Inventory), presence/type of advance care plans, interventions, mortality, place of death and comfort (Symptom Management at End of Life in Dementia Scale).
Results: Of 159 potential participants, 85 were recruited (62% alive at end of follow-up). Pain (11% at rest, 61% on movement) and significant agitation (54%) were common and persistent. Aspiration, dyspnoea, septicaemia and pneumonia were more frequent in those who died. In total, 76% had "do not resuscitate" statements, less than 40% advance care plans. Most received primary care visits, there was little input from geriatrics or mental health but contact with emergency paramedics was common.
Conclusion:People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. Service provision was not tailored to their needs. Longitudinal multidisciplinary input could optimise symptom control and quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events of treatment for pain in cancer and in palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.This is an update of two Cochrane reviews. One was published in 2011, Issue 1 on laxatives and methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care; this was updated in 2015 and excluded methylnaltrexone. The other was published in 2008, Issue 4 on mu-opioid antagonists (MOA) for OIBD. In this updated review, we only included trials on MOA (including methylnaltrexone) for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science to August 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We contacted manufacturers of MOA to identify further data.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease they experienced.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across the trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation, impact on pain relief, and adverse events. Impact on pain relief was a primary outcome because a possible adverse effect of MOAs is a reduction in pain relief from opioids. We assessed the evidence on these outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified four new trials for this update, bringing the total number included in this review to eight. In total, 1022 men and women with cancer irrespective of stage or at a palliative care stage of any disease were randomised across the trials. The MOAs evaluated were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared with MOA with a placebo or with the active intervention administered at different doses or in combination with other drugs. The trial of naldemedine and the two of naloxone in combination with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. The four trials on methylnaltrexone were undertaken in palliative care where most participants had cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; four were at a high risk as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per arm.In the trial of naldemedine compared to placebo in 225 participants, there were more spontaneous laxations over the two-week treatment for the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.36 to 2.74; moderate-quality evidence). In comparison with higher doses, lower doses resulted in fewer spontaneous laxations (0.1 mg versus 0.2 mg: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence). There was moderate-quality evidence that naldemedine had no effect on opiate withdrawal. There were five serious adverse events. All were in people taking naldemedine (low-quality evidence). There was an increase in the occurrence of other (non-serious) adverse events in the naldemedine groups (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79, moderate-quality evidence). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea.The trials on naloxone taken either on its own, or in combination with oxycodone (an opioid) compared to oxycodone only did not evaluate laxation response over the first two weeks of administration. There was very low-quality evidence that naloxone alone, and moderate-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone, had no effect on analgesia. There was low-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone did not increase the risk of serious adverse events and moderate-quality evidence that it did not increase risk of adverse events.In combined analysis of two trials of 287 participants, we found methylnaltrexone compared to placebo induced more laxations within 24 hours (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.04. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). In combined analysis, we found methylnaltrexone induced more laxation responses over two weeks (RR 9.98, 95% CI 4.96 to 20.09. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The proportion of participants who had a rescue-free laxation response within 24 hours of the first dose was 59.1% in the methylnaltrexone arms and 19.1% in the placebo arm. There was moderate-quality evidence that the rate of opioid withdrawal was not affected. Methylnaltrexone did not increase the likelihood of a serious adverse event; there were fewer in the intervention arm (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45; I² = 74%; low-quality evidence). Methylnaltrexone increased the likelihood of abdominal pain and flatulence.Two trials compared differing methylnaltrexone schedules of higher doses with lower doses. For early laxation, there was low-quality evidence of no clear difference between doses on analgesia and adverse events. Both trials measured laxation response within 24 hours of first dose (trial one: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.66; trial two: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, the conclusions for naldemedine are new. There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that, taken orally, naldemedine improves bowel function over two weeks in people with cancer and OIBD but increases the risk of adverse events. The conclusions on naloxone and methylnaltrexone have not changed. The trials on naloxone did not assess laxation at 24 hours or over two weeks. There is moderate-quality evidence that methylnaltrexone improves bowel function in people receiving palliative care in the short term and over two weeks, and low-quality evidence that it does not increase adverse events. There is a need for more trials including more evaluation of adverse events. None of the current trials evaluated effects in children.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the limitations in palliative care provision in the last year of life for people with liver cirrhosis and potential barriers to and enablers of palliative care.
DESIGN: Mixed methods, including a retrospective case note review, qualitative focus groups and individual interviews.
SETTING: A tertiary referral liver centre in the south of England (UK).
PARTICIPANTS: Purposively selected case notes of 30 people with cirrhosis who attended the tertiary referral liver centre and died during an 18-month period; a purposive sample of 22 liver health professionals who participated in either focus groups or individual interviews.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Data collected from case notes included hospital admissions, documented discussions of prognosis and palliative care provision. Qualitative methods explored management of people with cirrhosis, and barriers to and enablers of palliative care.
RESULTS: Participants had high rates of hospital admissions and symptom burden. Clinicians rarely discussed prognosis or future care preferences; they lacked the skills and confidence to initiate discussions. Palliative care provision occurred late because clinicians were reluctant to refer due to their perception that reduced liver function is reversible, poor understanding of the potential of a palliative approach; palliative care was perceived negatively by patients and families.
CONCLUSIONS: People dying with cirrhosis have unpredictable trajectories, but share a common pathway of frequent admissions and worsening symptoms as death approaches. The use of clinical tools to identify the point of irreversible deterioration and joint working between liver services and palliative care may improve care for people with cirrhosis.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The "Surprise Question" (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality.
METHODS: Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6–80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7–86.3).
CONCLUSIONS: There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted.
Background: Many people with dementia die in nursing homes, but quality of care may be suboptimal. We developed the theory-driven 'Compassion Intervention' to enhance end-of-life care in advanced dementia.
Objectives: To (1) understand how the Intervention operated in nursing homes in different health economies; (2) collect preliminary outcome data and costs of an interdisciplinary care leader (ICL) to facilitate the Intervention; (3) check the Intervention caused no harm.
Design: A naturalistic feasibility study of Intervention implementation for 6 months.
Settings: Two nursing homes in northern London, UK.
Participants: Thirty residents with advanced dementia were assessed of whom nine were recruited for data collection; four of these residents' family members were interviewed. Twenty-eight nursing home and external healthcare professionals participated in interviews at 7 (n=19), 11 (n=19) and 15 months (n=10).
Intervention: An ICL led two core Intervention components: (1) integrated, interdisciplinary assessment and care; (2) education and support for paid and family carers.
Data collected: Process and outcome data were collected. Symptoms were recorded monthly for recruited residents. Semistructured interviews were conducted at 7, 11 and 15 months with nursing home staff and external healthcare professionals and at 7 months with family carers. ICL hours were costed using Department of Health and Health Education England tariffs.
Results: Contextual differences were identified between sites: nursing home 2 had lower involvement with external healthcare services. Core components were implemented at both sites but multidisciplinary meetings were only established in nursing home 1. The Intervention prompted improvements in advance care planning, pain management and person-centred care; we observed no harm. Six-month ICL costs were £18255.
Conclusions: Implementation was feasible to differing degrees across sites, dependent on context. Our data inform future testing to identify the Intervention's effectiveness in improving end-of-life care in advanced dementia.
Background: Many studies have examined the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Few have examined their experiences in the advanced stages of disease and into bereavement. We aimed to understand the experiences of carers during advanced dementia exploring the links between mental health and experiences of end of life care.
Methods: Mixed methods longitudinal cohort study. Thirty-five family carers of people with advanced dementia (6 at home, 29 in care homes) were recruited and assessed monthly for up to nine months or until the person with dementia died, then at two and seven months into bereavement. Assessments included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Short Form 12 health-related quality of life, 22-item Zarit Burden Interview, Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced, Inventory of Complicated Grief and Satisfaction with Care at End of Life in Dementia. Subsequently, 12 carers (34%) were bereaved and 12 undertook a qualitative interview two months after death; these data were analysed thematically. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data independently and then merged findings at the point of interpretation.
Results: At study entry psychological distress was high; 26% reached caseness for depression and 41% for anxiety and median complicated grief scores were 27 [IQR 22-37] indicating that on average 11 of the 16 grief symptoms occurred at least monthly. Physical health reflected population norms (mean = 50) and median burden scores were 17 [IQR 9-30]. Three qualitative themes were identified: the importance of relationships with care services, understanding of the progression of dementia, and emotional responses to advanced dementia. An overarching theme tying these together was the carer's ability to control and influence end of life care.
Conclusions: While carers report high levels of psychological distress during advanced dementia, the experience of end of life care in dementia may be amenable to change with the provision of sensitive and timely information about the natural progression of dementia. Regular health status updates and end of life discussions can help families understand dementia progression and prepare for end of life. The extent to which our findings reflect practice across the UK or internationally warrants further investigation.