Search

BACKGROUND: Population ageing will lead to more deaths with an uncertain trajectory. Identifying patients at risk of dying could facilitate more effective care planning. AIM: To determine whether screening for likely death within 12 months is more effective using screening tools or intuition. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of screening tools (Surprise Question plus the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for Surprise Question positive patients) to predict those at risk of death at 12 months compared with unguided intuition (clinical trials registry: ACTRN12613000266763). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Australian general practice. A total of 30 general practitioners (screening tool = 12, intuition = 18) screened all patients ( n = 4365) aged ≥70 years seen at least once in the last 2 years. RESULTS: There were 142 deaths (screening tool = 3.1%, intuition = 3.3%; p = 0.79). General practitioners identified more at risk of dying using Surprise Question (11.8%) than intuition (5.4%; p = 0.01), but no difference with Surprise Question positive then Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (5.1%; p = 0.87). Surprise Question positive predicted more deaths (53.2%, intuition = 33.7%; p = 0.001), but Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool predictions were similar (5.1%; p = 0.87 vs intuition). There was no difference in proportions correctly predicted to die (Surprise Question = 1.6%, intuition = 1.1%; p = 0.156 and Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool = 1.1%; p = 0.86 vs intuition). Screening tool had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than intuition, but no difference in positive or negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Screening tool was better at predicting actual death than intuition, but with a higher false positive rate. Both were similarly effective at screening the whole cohort for death. Screening for possible death is not the best option for initiating end-of-life planning

Background Providing end of life care in rural areas is challenging. We evaluated in a pilot whether nurse practitioner (NP)-led care, including clinical care plans negotiated with involved health professionals including the general practitioner(GP), ± patient and/or carer, through a single multidisciplinary case conference (SMCC), could influence patient and health system outcomes. Methods Setting – Australian rural district 50 kilometers from the nearest specialist palliative care service. Participants: Adults nearing the end of life from any cause, life expectancy several months. Intervention- NP led assessment, then SMCC as soon as possible after referral. A clinical care plan recorded management plans for current and anticipated problems and who was responsible for each action. Eligible patients had baseline, 1 and 3 month patient-reported assessment of function, quality of life, depression and carer stress, and a clinical record audit. Interviews with key service providers assessed the utility and feasibility of the service. Results Sixty-two patients were referred to the service, forty from the specialist service. Many patients required immediate treatment, prior to both the planned baseline assessment and the planned SMCC (therefore ineligible for enrollment). Only six patients were assessed per protocol, so we amended the protocol. There were 23 case conferences. Reasons for not conducting the case conference included the patient approaching death, or assessed as not having immediate problems. Pain (25 %) and depression (23 %) were the most common symptoms discussed in the case conferences. Ten new advance care plans were initiated, with most patients already having one. The NP or RN made 101 follow-up visits, 169 phone calls, and made 17 referrals to other health professionals. The NP prescribed 24 new medications and altered the dose in nine. There were 14 hospitalisations in the time frame of the project. Participants were sat