Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug;34(8):1467-1474.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05094-4. Epub 2019 Jun 12.

Prioritizing Primary Care Patients for a Communication Intervention Using the "Surprise Question": a Prospective Cohort Study

Joshua R Lakin  1   2   3   4 , Margaret G Robinson  5 , Ziad Obermeyer  6   7   8 , Brian W Powers  9 , Susan D Block  10   11   6   9   12 , Rebecca Cunningham  9 , Joseph M Tumblin  13 , Christine Vogeli  13   14   15 , Rachelle E Bernacki  10   11   6   9
Affiliations

Prioritizing Primary Care Patients for a Communication Intervention Using the "Surprise Question": a Prospective Cohort Study

Joshua R Lakin et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Communication about priorities and goals improves the value of care for patients with serious illnesses. Resource constraints necessitate targeting interventions to patients who need them most.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a clinician screening tool to identify patients for a communication intervention.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Primary care clinics in Boston, MA.

Participants: Primary care physicians (PCPs) and nurse care coordinators (RNCCs) identified patients at high risk of dying by answering the Surprise Question (SQ): "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 2 years?"

Measurements: Performance of the SQ for predicting mortality, measured by the area under receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.

Results: Sensitivity of PCP response to the SQ at 2 years was 79.4% and specificity 68.6%; for RNCCs, sensitivity was 52.6% and specificity 80.6%. In univariate regression, the odds of 2-year mortality for patients identified as high risk by PCPs were 8.4 times higher than those predicted to be at low risk (95% CI 5.7-12.4, AUC 0.74) and 4.6 for RNCCs (3.4-6.2, AUC 0.67). In multivariate analysis, both PCP and RNCC prediction of high risk of death remained associated with the odds of 2-year mortality.

Limitations: This study was conducted in the context of a high-risk care management program, including an initial screening process and training, both of which affect the generalizability of the results.

Conclusion: When used in combination with a high-risk algorithm, the 2-year version of the SQ captured the majority of patients who died, demonstrating better than expected performance as a screening tool for a serious illness communication intervention in a heterogeneous primary care population.

Keywords: advance care planning; end-of-life care; palliative care; patient identification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Lakin and Dr. Bernacki are supported by the Cambia Sojourns Scholar Leadership Program. Dr. Block serves as the Palliative Care editor for UpToDate. The remainder of the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier curves of physician and nurse 2-year Surprise Question answers. SQ, Surprise Question.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Tulsky JA. Improving quality of care for serious illness: findings and recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report on dying in America. JAMA internal medicine. 2015;175(5):840–1. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.8425. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Teno JM, Clarridge BR, Casey V, Welch LC, Wetle T, Shield R, et al. Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2004;291(1):88–93. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.1.88. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wright AA, Keating NL, Balboni TA, Matulonis UA, Block SD, Prigerson HG. Place of death: correlations with quality of life of patients with cancer and predictors of bereaved caregivers’ mental health. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2010;28(29):4457–64. doi: 10.1200/jco.2009.26.3863. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Meier DE. Increased access to palliative care and hospice services: opportunities to improve value in health care. The Milbank quarterly. 2011;89(3):343–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00632.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bell CL, Somogyi-Zalud E, Masaki KH. Factors associated with congruence between preferred and actual place of death. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2010;39(3):591–604. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.07.007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types