Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Section of Medical Ethics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; ACHIEVE - Centre of Applied Research, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Sep;109:103609. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103609. Epub 2020 May 29.
Palliative needs in older patients are often not timely identified. The Surprise Question (SQ) 'would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?' is a well-researched tool that could aid in this effort. Most studies thus far involved physicians or specialist nurses, however the predictive value of the SQ when used by general nurses caring for hospitalized older patients is unknown.
To assess the predictive value of the SQ when used by general nurses and student nurses, in determining one year mortality in acutely hospitalized older patients.
Observational cohort study with an one year follow-up.
One academic and one regional hospital in the Netherlands.
Patients ≥70 years acutely hospitalized for at least 48 hours.
Registered nurses and student nurses answered the SQ with 'No' (a positive SQ), 'Yes' or 'Don't know'. Data on student nurses was analysed separately. The sensitivity, specificity, negative- and positive predictive values were calculated. Furthermore, logistic regression was performed to determine the odds of death.
66 registered nurses answered the SQ for 252 patients of whom 77 (30.6%) died in the year after inclusion. Respectively, 44%, 14% and 22% died within the 'No', 'Yes' and 'Don't know' group. 85% of patients who died during admission or in the first three months post-discharge were identified. The sensitivity and specificity were 76.7% and 56.6%. The positive and negative predictive values were 43.7% and 84.6 %. Compared to persons in whom the SQ was answered with yes, a no answer was associated with an 4.7 times increased odds of dying in the next 12 months (odds ratio 4.71, 95% CI 2.43-9.12, p<0.001). Additionally, 20 student nurses answered the SQ about 73 patients; sensitivity and specificity were 46.7% and 72.1%, with a positive and negative predictive value of 53.8% and 66.0% respectively.
The usability of the Surprise Question in predicting 12-month mortality in older acutely admitted patients is limited, due to the high false positive rate. The SQ when used by non-specialized nurses identifies vulnerable patients with an increased mortality risk and can be used as a first step in assessing a patients' palliative needs, but has limited use as a single criterion for referral to specialist palliative care.
老年人的姑息治疗需求往往不能及时得到识别。“Surprise Question(SQ)”即“如果这个患者在接下来的一年中去世,我会感到惊讶吗?”是一种经过充分研究的工具,可以帮助解决这个问题。迄今为止,大多数研究都涉及医生或专科护士,然而,普通护士在照顾住院老年患者时使用 SQ 的预测价值尚不清楚。
评估普通护士和实习护士使用 SQ 预测急性住院老年患者一年内死亡率的能力。
一项为期一年的前瞻性队列研究。
荷兰的一所学术医院和一所地区医院。
至少住院 48 小时的 70 岁以上急性住院患者。
注册护士和实习护士回答 SQ,回答“否”(阳性 SQ)、“是”或“不知道”。单独分析实习护士的数据。计算灵敏度、特异性、阴性和阳性预测值。此外,还进行了逻辑回归以确定死亡的可能性。
66 名注册护士对 252 名患者回答了 SQ,其中 77 名(30.6%)在纳入后一年内死亡。分别有 44%、14%和 22%的患者在“否”、“是”和“不知道”组中死亡。85%的在住院期间或出院后三个月内死亡的患者被识别出来。灵敏度和特异性分别为 76.7%和 56.6%。阳性和阴性预测值分别为 43.7%和 84.6%。与 SQ 回答“是”的人相比,回答“否”的人在接下来的 12 个月内死亡的可能性增加了 4.7 倍(优势比 4.71,95%置信区间 2.43-9.12,p<0.001)。此外,20 名实习护士回答了 SQ 对 73 名患者;灵敏度和特异性分别为 46.7%和 72.1%,阳性和阴性预测值分别为 53.8%和 66.0%。
由于假阳性率高,SQ 在预测老年急性住院患者 12 个月死亡率方面的可用性有限。非专业护士使用 SQ 可以识别出死亡率较高的脆弱患者,并可作为评估患者姑息治疗需求的第一步,但作为转诊至姑息治疗专科的单一标准,其用途有限。