59 Can heart failure nurse specialists use the surprise question to improve patient access to palliative care services?

Melanie Mcginlay, S. Straw, A. Cowley, J. Gierula, M. Paton, Aaron Koshy, M. Drozd, R. Cubbon, M. Kearney, K. Witte
{"title":"59 Can heart failure nurse specialists use the surprise question to improve patient access to palliative care services?","authors":"Melanie Mcginlay, S. Straw, A. Cowley, J. Gierula, M. Paton, Aaron Koshy, M. Drozd, R. Cubbon, M. Kearney, K. Witte","doi":"10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BCS.59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Severe chronic heart failure (CHF) has a high symptom burden due to breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention, comparable to many types of cancer but despite this, patients are often not referred to palliative care services. The ’Surprise Question’ - ‘would you be surprised if this patient were to die within the next year?’ has been proposed as a screening tool to prompt earlier recognition that patients are nearing the end of life. It forms part of the Gold Standards Framework and is included in the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for end-of-life care. We have previously demonstrated the ability of this simple and intuitive question to predict mortality in hospitalised CHF patients and that it can be used by cardiologists and heart failure nurse (HFN) specialists with similar levels of accuracy. Aims We aimed to determine whether the Surprise Question could influence advanced care planning and referrals to palliative care in hospitalised CHF patients. Methods Retrospective analysis of 89 hospitalised CHF patients who received either a ‘surprised’ or ‘not surprised’ response from their HFN. We analysed the rate of referral to palliative care, completion of not-for-resuscitation status, readmission with decompensation and mortality after 2-years. Results Sixty patients (67%) received a ‘not surprised’ and 29 (33%) a ‘surprised’ response. In patients who received a ‘not surprised’ response, 25 (28%) were referred to palliative care within the study period, compared to 0 (0%) in the ‘surprised’ group. The median time from study enrolment to referral was 55 days, which was on average 19 days before death, but occurred within 30-days of enrolment for only 8 patients. Not-for-resuscitation status was completed for 11% and 3% of patients, respectively. The Surprise Question also predicted readmission with decompensation, occurring in 25 (42%) and 4 (14%), and continued to predict mortality beyond 1-year with 35 (58%) and 4 (14%) patients having died respectively. Discussion Our analysis highlights the potential of the Surprise Question to act as a prompt for earlier referral to palliative care services and advanced care planning. Decompensation of heart failure is a poor prognostic sign, but despite this there was a low rate of not-for-resuscitation decisions during the index admission, and referrals to palliative care were usually made shortly before death. In the future we aim to assess in a randomised controlled trial whether the introduction of the Surprise Question into routine clinical care can achieve these aims. HFNs are able to use the Surprise Question with similar levels of accuracy to cardiologists and are the point of contact for patients with whom they have regular interaction. HFN are therefore ideally placed to develop relationships conducive to palliative care planning and can lead in this area. Conflict of Interest None","PeriodicalId":193598,"journal":{"name":"Allied health professionals/Nursing/Health scientists","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allied health professionals/Nursing/Health scientists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BCS.59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Severe chronic heart failure (CHF) has a high symptom burden due to breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention, comparable to many types of cancer but despite this, patients are often not referred to palliative care services. The ’Surprise Question’ - ‘would you be surprised if this patient were to die within the next year?’ has been proposed as a screening tool to prompt earlier recognition that patients are nearing the end of life. It forms part of the Gold Standards Framework and is included in the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for end-of-life care. We have previously demonstrated the ability of this simple and intuitive question to predict mortality in hospitalised CHF patients and that it can be used by cardiologists and heart failure nurse (HFN) specialists with similar levels of accuracy. Aims We aimed to determine whether the Surprise Question could influence advanced care planning and referrals to palliative care in hospitalised CHF patients. Methods Retrospective analysis of 89 hospitalised CHF patients who received either a ‘surprised’ or ‘not surprised’ response from their HFN. We analysed the rate of referral to palliative care, completion of not-for-resuscitation status, readmission with decompensation and mortality after 2-years. Results Sixty patients (67%) received a ‘not surprised’ and 29 (33%) a ‘surprised’ response. In patients who received a ‘not surprised’ response, 25 (28%) were referred to palliative care within the study period, compared to 0 (0%) in the ‘surprised’ group. The median time from study enrolment to referral was 55 days, which was on average 19 days before death, but occurred within 30-days of enrolment for only 8 patients. Not-for-resuscitation status was completed for 11% and 3% of patients, respectively. The Surprise Question also predicted readmission with decompensation, occurring in 25 (42%) and 4 (14%), and continued to predict mortality beyond 1-year with 35 (58%) and 4 (14%) patients having died respectively. Discussion Our analysis highlights the potential of the Surprise Question to act as a prompt for earlier referral to palliative care services and advanced care planning. Decompensation of heart failure is a poor prognostic sign, but despite this there was a low rate of not-for-resuscitation decisions during the index admission, and referrals to palliative care were usually made shortly before death. In the future we aim to assess in a randomised controlled trial whether the introduction of the Surprise Question into routine clinical care can achieve these aims. HFNs are able to use the Surprise Question with similar levels of accuracy to cardiologists and are the point of contact for patients with whom they have regular interaction. HFN are therefore ideally placed to develop relationships conducive to palliative care planning and can lead in this area. Conflict of Interest None
心力衰竭护理专家是否可以使用意外问题来改善患者获得姑息治疗服务的机会?
严重慢性心力衰竭(CHF)由于呼吸困难、疲劳和液体潴留而具有很高的症状负担,与许多类型的癌症相当,但尽管如此,患者通常不会转诊到姑息治疗服务。“惊喜问题”——“如果这个病人在明年内死去,你会感到惊讶吗?”已被提议作为一种筛查工具,以促使人们更早地认识到患者已接近生命的尽头。它构成了黄金标准框架的一部分,并被纳入国家健康和临床卓越研究所(NICE)临终关怀指南。我们之前已经证明了这个简单而直观的问题预测住院CHF患者死亡率的能力,并且它可以被心脏病学家和心力衰竭护士(HFN)专家使用,具有相似的准确性。我们的目的是确定惊喜问题是否会影响住院CHF患者的晚期护理计划和转诊到姑息治疗。方法回顾性分析89例住院CHF患者的HFN反应为“意外”或“不意外”。我们分析了转诊到姑息治疗的比率、完成非复苏状态、再入院与失代偿以及2年后的死亡率。结果60例(67%)患者获得“不惊讶”反应,29例(33%)患者获得“惊讶”反应。在接受“不惊讶”反应的患者中,25人(28%)在研究期间被转诊到姑息治疗,而“惊讶”组为0人(0%)。从研究入组到转诊的中位时间为55天,平均为死亡前19天,但只有8例患者发生在入组后30天内。分别有11%和3%的患者完成了非复苏状态。惊喜问题还预测了再入院与失代偿,发生在25(42%)和4(14%),并继续预测超过1年的死亡率,分别有35(58%)和4(14%)患者死亡。我们的分析强调了惊喜问题的潜力,作为早期转诊到姑息治疗服务和高级护理计划的提示。心衰失代偿是一个不良的预后迹象,但尽管如此,在指数入院期间,不进行复苏的决定率很低,并且通常在死亡前不久进行姑息治疗。在未来,我们的目标是在随机对照试验中评估将惊喜问题引入常规临床护理是否可以实现这些目标。hfn能够以与心脏病专家相似的准确度使用惊喜问题,并且是与他们经常互动的患者的联络点。因此,HFN处于发展有利于姑息治疗规划的关系的理想位置,并可在这一领域发挥领导作用。利益冲突无
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信