Analysis of the surprise question as a tool for predicting death in neonates

被引:0
|
作者
Asenjo, Silvia [1 ]
Soler-Garcia, Aleix [2 ,5 ,6 ]
Morillo-Palomo, Ana [3 ]
Habimana-Jordana, Anna [1 ]
Guillen, Montserrat [4 ]
Bolance, Catalina [4 ]
Navarro-Vilarrubi, Sergi [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp St Joan Deu, Dept Pediat Palliat Care, Barcelona, Spain
[2] Hosp St Joan Deu, Pediat Dept, Passeig St Joan Deu 2, Barcelona 08950, Spain
[3] St Joan Deu Hosp, Neonatol Dept, Barcelona, Spain
[4] Univ Barcelona, Dept Econometr Stat & Appl Econ, Barcelona, Spain
[5] Inst Recerca St Joan Deu, Infect Dis & Microbiome Res Grp, Esplugas de Llobregat, Spain
[6] Univ Barcelona, Dept Cirurgia & Especialitats Medicoquirurg, Fac Med & Ciencies Salut, Barcelona, Spain
关键词
Palliative care; Surprise Question; Neonatology; Predictor factor; UTILITY;
D O I
10.1007/s00431-024-05879-8
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
The Surprise Question "Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next 12 months?" lacks pediatric research, particularly in neonatal patients. Our study aims to analyze the Surprise Question's predictive ability in neonates and explore pediatricians' views on palliative care patient identification. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2021 to June 2023, including all newborns admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of a pediatric tertiary hospital and its pediatricians. Patients with less than a year since admission were excluded from final analyses. Recorded variables included patient demographics and condition, pediatricians' profile and opinions regarding the Surprise Question, and palliative care patient identification. The Surprise Question was formulated to one or more pediatricians per neonate at admission, 7 days of life, and 28 days of life, with patient status recorded after 12 months to elaborate a confusion matrix of prognostic test results. A total of 51 pediatricians participated. Most felt they had limited criteria for identifying palliative care patients (55%), believed the Surprise Question could be useful (77%), and predicted death (75%). The Surprise Question was answered at least in one out of the three moments for 262 neonates (61% male and at least 36% preterm), with sufficient sample at each moment to study its predictive ability. High negative predictive values were consistent, with higher positive predictive value at 7 days (26%). Conclusions The Surprise Question is a promising tool for predicting neonatal outcome and could guide professionals in initiating palliative care discussions. The 7-day mark appears more suitable for this application. What is Known: Previous research has established the Surprise Question as a valuable tool for predicting death in adults. However, limited research exists on its use in pediatric patients and its role remains unexplored in the neonatal period. What is New: The study evaluates the Surprise Question as a tool for predicting death within the first year of life when applied in the neonatal period. It offers insights into its predictive ability and most suitable time for its application. This study sheds light on its applicability in neonatal care, offering a valuable tool for early identification and referral to palliative care.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Response to: "About the 'surprise question'"
    Downar, James
    Goldman, Russell
    Pinto, Ruxandra
    Englesakis, Marina
    Adhikari, Neill K. J.
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2017, 189 (23) : E808 - E808
  • [22] Should the Surprise Question be Used as a Prognostic Tool for People With Life-limiting Illnesses?
    Chu, Christina
    Engels, Yvonne
    Suh, Sang-Yeon
    Kim, Sun-Hyun
    White, Nicola
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2023, 66 (03) : E437 - E441
  • [23] How Robust Is the 'Surprise Question' in Predicting Short-Term Mortality Risk in Haemodialysis Patients?
    Gane, Maria Da Silva
    Braun, Andreas
    Stott, Dave
    Wellsted, David
    Farrington, Ken
    NEPHRON CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2013, 123 (3-4): : 185 - 193
  • [24] Surprise as a marketing tool
    Gwynne, P
    MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2002, 44 (01) : 15 - 15
  • [25] The utility of the surprise question: A useful tool for identifying patients nearing the last phase of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    van Lummel, Eline V. T. J.
    Ietswaard, Larissa
    Zuithoff, Nicolaas P. A.
    Tjan, Dave H. T.
    van Delden, Johannes J. M.
    PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2022, 36 (07) : 1023 - 1046
  • [26] Early palliative care: the surprise question and the palliative care screening tool-better together
    Yen, Yung-Feng
    Lee, Ya-Ling
    Hu, Hsiao-Yun
    Sun, Wen-Jung
    Ko, Ming-Chung
    Chen, Chu-Chieh
    Wong, Weng Kee
    Morisky, Donald E.
    Huang, Sheng-Jean
    Chu, Dachen
    BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE, 2022, 12 (02) : 211 - 217
  • [27] Using a Modified Surprise Question as a Tool to Improve Primary Palliative Care in a Neurocritical Care Unit
    Sinha, Shilpee
    Subramoney, Kavitha
    Fraser, Mark
    Howard, Joycelyn
    Sadowski, Josh
    Azar, Jose
    Kara, Areeba
    JOINT COMMISSION JOURNAL ON QUALITY AND PATIENT SAFETY, 2021, 47 (04): : 228 - 233
  • [28] Does a home death assessment tool assist in predicting location of death?
    Parker, P
    Brenneis, C
    Hall, K
    Quan, H
    Viganò, A
    JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE CARE, 2001, 17 (03) : 207 - 207
  • [29] Question closure to solve the surprise test
    Daniel Immerman
    Synthese, 2017, 194 : 4583 - 4596
  • [30] The Surprise Question: Not Ready for Prime Time
    Davis, Mellar P.
    PALLIATIVE MEDICINE REPORTS, 2024, 5 (01): : 438 - 439