Evaluating the Utility of the Surprise Question Among General Physicians for Appropriate Palliative Care Indication in Brazil.

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative medicine reports Pub Date : 2024-07-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/pmr.2024.0003
Gabriel Barros Furtado Leão Borges, Cristiane Bitencourt Dias
{"title":"Evaluating the Utility of the Surprise Question Among General Physicians for Appropriate Palliative Care Indication in Brazil.","authors":"Gabriel Barros Furtado Leão Borges, Cristiane Bitencourt Dias","doi":"10.1089/pmr.2024.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess the agreement between established tools, such as the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) and Brazilian version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-BR), and the subjective assessment of palliative care (PC) need using the Surprise Question (SQ) administered by resident physicians. This assessment was conducted among hospitalized patients, with and without cancer, to determine the efficacy of these tools in indicating the need for PC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A six-month cross-sectional study in 2019 of medical records of patients hospitalized in a single center in IAMSPE-Brazil. The SPICT-BR and PPS were applied to the medical record data, and the SQ was posed to each resident physician. Comparisons for categorical data were made using the chi-square test, with <i>p</i> < 0.05 considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 203 patients evaluated, 57.6% were male and 81.2% were older adults (≥60 years). The mean age was 67.40 ± 9.72 years. Chronic disease was nonneoplastic in 78.32% of patients, and 56.65% had not been hospitalized in the preceding year. The PPS score was <70% in 69.4% of patients, and 51.2% met at least one SPICT-BR criterion. Among patients with cancer, 40.9% had over two positive SPICT-BR criteria; 97.5% of these patients received NO responses to SQ by residents (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). Similarly, 90.6% of patients with one SPICT-BR criterion received NO responses to SQ, with no significant difference between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SQ proved to be a valuable tool for PC indication, particularly when administered by untrained professionals. Consistent with SPICT-BR findings, our study highlights the SQ's role in facilitating early identification of patients in need of PC.</p>","PeriodicalId":74394,"journal":{"name":"Palliative medicine reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11262583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2024.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the agreement between established tools, such as the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) and Brazilian version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-BR), and the subjective assessment of palliative care (PC) need using the Surprise Question (SQ) administered by resident physicians. This assessment was conducted among hospitalized patients, with and without cancer, to determine the efficacy of these tools in indicating the need for PC.

Methods: A six-month cross-sectional study in 2019 of medical records of patients hospitalized in a single center in IAMSPE-Brazil. The SPICT-BR and PPS were applied to the medical record data, and the SQ was posed to each resident physician. Comparisons for categorical data were made using the chi-square test, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results: Of 203 patients evaluated, 57.6% were male and 81.2% were older adults (≥60 years). The mean age was 67.40 ± 9.72 years. Chronic disease was nonneoplastic in 78.32% of patients, and 56.65% had not been hospitalized in the preceding year. The PPS score was <70% in 69.4% of patients, and 51.2% met at least one SPICT-BR criterion. Among patients with cancer, 40.9% had over two positive SPICT-BR criteria; 97.5% of these patients received NO responses to SQ by residents (p < 0.0001). Similarly, 90.6% of patients with one SPICT-BR criterion received NO responses to SQ, with no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion: The SQ proved to be a valuable tool for PC indication, particularly when administered by untrained professionals. Consistent with SPICT-BR findings, our study highlights the SQ's role in facilitating early identification of patients in need of PC.

评估 "惊喜问题 "在巴西全科医生中的实用性,以确定适当的姑息治疗。
研究目的本研究旨在评估姑息治疗绩效量表(PPS)和巴西版支持性姑息治疗指标工具(SPICT-BR)等既有工具与住院医生使用 "惊喜问题"(SQ)对姑息治疗(PC)需求进行的主观评估之间的一致性。这项评估是在住院患者(包括癌症患者和非癌症患者)中进行的,目的是确定这些工具在显示姑息治疗需求方面的有效性:2019年,对巴西IAMSPE单个中心住院患者的医疗记录进行了为期六个月的横断面研究。将 SPICT-BR 和 PPS 应用于病历数据,并向每位住院医生提出 SQ。分类数据的比较采用卡方检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义:在接受评估的 203 名患者中,57.6% 为男性,81.2% 为老年人(≥60 岁)。平均年龄为 67.40 ± 9.72 岁。78.32%的患者患有非肿瘤性慢性疾病,56.65%的患者在过去一年中未住院治疗。PPS 评分 p < 0.0001)。同样,90.6%有一项SPICT-BR标准的患者对SQ无反应,组间无显著差异:结论:SQ 被证明是 PC 适应症的重要工具,尤其是在由未经培训的专业人员实施时。与 SPICT-BR 的研究结果一致,我们的研究强调了 SQ 在促进早期识别需要 PC 的患者方面的作用。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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