A systematic review on the impact of financial insecurity on the physical and psychological well-being for people living with terminal illness.

BACKGROUND: People living with terminal illness are at higher risk of experiencing financial insecurity. The variance in definitions of financial insecurity, in addition to its impact on the well-being of this population has not yet been systematically analysed. AIM: To understand the definition, prevalence and impact of financial insecurity on the physical and psychological well-being of people living with terminal illness. DESIGN: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis (prospectively registered; CRD42023404516). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to May 2023. Included studies had to measure or describe the impact of financial insecurity on an aspect of participants' physical or mental well-being. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker tool. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included in the review. Financial insecurity was defined using many different definitions and terminology. Out of 4824 participants, 1126 (23%) reported experiencing high levels of financial insecurity. Nine studies reported 21 unique analyses across three domains of physical well-being. Out of those 21 analyses, 10 (48%) reported a negative result (an increase in financial insecurity was reported with a decrease in physical well-being). Twenty-one studies reported 51 unique analyses across nine domains of psychological well-being. Out of these analyses, 35 (69%) reported a negative result (an increase in financial insecurity was reported with a decrease in psychological well-being). CONCLUSIONS: People living with terminal illness require support with their financial situation to ensure their well-being is not negatively impacted by financial insecurity.

Time estimates in prognostic discussions: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations state that multidisciplinary team expertise should be utilised for more accurate survival predictions. How the multidisciplinary team discusses prognoses during meetings and how they reference time, is yet to be explored. AIM: To explore how temporality is conveyed in relation to patients' prognoses during hospice multidisciplinary team meetings. DESIGN: Video-recordings of 24 hospice multidisciplinary team meetings were transcribed and analysed using Conversation Analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 65 staff participating in multidisciplinary team meetings in a UK hospice from May to December 2021. RESULTS: Team members conveyed temporality in three different ways. (i) Staff stated that a patient was dying as part of the patient's current health status. These formulations did not include a time reference per se but described the patient's current situation (as dying) instead. (ii) Staff used specific time period references where another specific reference had been provided previously that somehow constrained the timeframe. In these cases, the prognosis would conflict with other proposed care plans. (iii) Staff members used unspecific time period references where the reference appeared vague and there was greater uncertainty about when the patient was expected to die. CONCLUSIONS: Unspecific time period references are sufficient for achieving meaningful prognostic talk in multidisciplinary teams. In-depth discussion and accurate prediction of patient prognoses are not deemed a priority nor a necessity of these meetings. Providing precise predictions may be too difficult due to uncertainty and accountability. The lack of staff pursuing more specific time references implies shared knowledge between staff and a context-specific use of prognostic estimates.

Understanding the association between pain and delirium in older hospital inpatients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Delirium and pain are common in older adults admitted to hospital. The relationship between these is unclear, but clinically important. We aimed to systematically review the association between pain (at rest, movement, pain severity) and delirium in this population. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched (January 1982-November 2022) for Medical Subject Heading terms and synonyms ('Pain', 'Analgesic', 'Delirium'). Study eligibility: (1) validated pain measure as exposure, (2) validated delirium tool as an outcome; participant eligibility: (1) medical or surgical (planned/unplanned) inpatients, (2) admission length ≥ 48 h and (3) median cohort age over 65 years. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. We collected/calculated odds ratios (ORs) for categorical data and standard mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data and conducted multi-level random-intercepts meta-regression models. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO [18/5/2020] (CRD42020181346). RESULTS: Thirty studies were selected: 14 reported categorical data; 16 reported continuous data. Delirium prevalence ranged from 2.2 to 55%. In the multi-level analysis, pain at rest (OR 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-3.30), movement (OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.66-2.56), pain categorised as 'severe' (OR 3.42; 95% CI 2.09-5.59) and increased pain severity when measured continuously (SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.08-0.59) were associated with an increased delirium risk. There was substantial heterogeneity in both categorical (I2 = 0%-77%) and continuous analyses (I2 = 85%). CONCLUSION: An increase in pain was associated with a higher risk of developing delirium. Adequate pain management with appropriate analgesia may reduce incidence and severity of delirium.

Emergency Department point-of-care antiviral host response testing is accurate during periods of multiple respiratory virus co-circulation.

OBJECTIVES: FebriDx is a CE-marked, FDA-approved point-of-care test that detects the antiviral host response protein Myxovirus Resistance Protein A (MxA), in addition to C-reactive protein, using finger-prick blood. FebriDx MxA detection had a high negative predictive value for COVID-19 in symptomatic adults presenting to hospital in the first waves of the pandemic and was used subsequently as a 'rule out' triage tool in Emergency departments. The diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx MxA in the current context of co-circulation of influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), and in the era of COVID-19 vaccination, is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of FebriDx MxA in adults with acute respiratory symptoms presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of a large UK teaching hospital using Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV). RESULTS: Between March 9th 2022 and March 8th 2023, 5426 patients had both FebriDx and RT-PCR testing with valid results. 999 (18.4%) of patients had influenza detected, 520 (9.6%) SARS-CoV-2, and 190 (3.5%) RSV. Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of MxA detection by FebriDx was 97.5% (96.9-98.0) for influenza, 97.1% (96.4-97.7) for SARS-CoV-2, 98.1% (97.5-98.6) for RSV, and 92.8% (91.8-93.7) for all viruses combined. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic adults, FebriDx MxA had a high NPV for influenza and RSV, and retained a high NPV for SARS-CoV-2, in the context of virus co-circulation and widespread COVID-19 vaccination. FebriDx continues to be a useful 'rule out' triage tool in the ED and could potentially be scaled to provide a national triage solution for future viral pandemics.

Prescribing hand strengthening exercise for patients with rheumatoid arthritis; clinical cues influencing occupational therapists' and physiotherapists' judgements.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical judgements of therapists in prescribing the intensity of hand strengthening exercise in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Phase I: Eleven therapists knowledgeable in treating patients with RA subjectively identified seven clinical cues. These were incorporated into 54 hypothetical patient case scenarios. PHASE II: Therapists with ≥2 years post-registration experience and current or recent experience in treating patients with RA were asked to assess 69 case scenarios in total (54 + 15 repeats) and judge what intensity of hand strengthening exercise they would prescribe using the OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale of perceived exertion. Using responses to the repeated cases, the Cochran-Weiss-Shanteau index of expertise was used to identify therapists who prescribed more consistently. Multiple regression was used to determine which clinical cues were most strongly associated with the intensity of exercise prescribed. A sub-group analysis explored differences between consistent and inconsistent prescribers. RESULTS: Fifty-three therapists took part. Thirty completed all 69 case scenarios. Across all therapists, the three most important clinical cues associated with lower intensity of exercise prescribed were (1) Patient's reported pain intensity whilst practising the exercise (ß = -1.150, p < 0.001), (2) Disease activity (ß = -0.425, p < 0.001) and (3) average hand pain over the last week (ß = -0.353 p < 0.001). Twelve therapists were categorised as consistent prescribers. This group relied on fewer clinical cues (three vs. seven) when judging what intensity of exercise to prescribe. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into how therapists prescribe hand exercises. Intensity of hand strengthening exercise was influenced by three key clinical cues, including pain intensity and disease activity.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies exploring the impact of receiving end-of-life prognoses in patients with advanced cancer use a variety of different measures to evaluate the outcomes, and thus report often conflicting findings. The standardization of outcomes reported in studies of prognostication in palliative cancer care could enable uniform assessment and reporting, as well as intertrial comparisons. A core outcome set promotes consistency in outcome selection and reporting among studies within a particular population. We aim to develop a set of core outcomes to be used to measure the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. OBJECTIVE: This protocol outlines the proposed methodology to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. METHODS: We will adopt a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 phases using methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measure in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. In phase I, we will conduct a systematic review to identify existing outcomes that prognostic studies have previously used, so as to inform the development of items and domains for the proposed core outcome set. Phase II will consist of semistructured interviews with patients with advanced cancer who are receiving palliative care, informal caregivers, and clinicians, to explore their perceptions and experiences of end-of-life prognostication. Outcomes identified in the interviews will be combined with those found in existing literature and taken forward to phase III, a Delphi survey, in which we will ask patients, informal caregivers, clinicians, and relevant researchers to rate these outcomes until consensus is achieved as to which are considered to be the most important for inclusion in the core outcome set. The resulting, prioritized outcomes will be discussed in a consensus meeting to agree and endorse the final core outcome set. RESULTS: Ethical approval was received for this study in September 2022. As of July 2023, we have completed and published the systematic review (phase I) and have started recruitment for phase II. Data analysis for phase II has not yet started. We expect to complete the study by October 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol presents the stepwise approach that will be taken to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. The final core outcome set has the potential for translation into clinical practice, allowing for consistent evaluation of emerging prognostic algorithms and improving communication of end-of-life prognostication. This study will also potentially facilitate the design of future clinical trials of the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative care that are acceptable to key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials 2136; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2136. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49774.

What outcomes do studies use to measure the impact of prognostication on people with advanced cancer? Findings from a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important. AIM: To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022). DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients' and informal caregivers' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion. RESULTS: We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders' priorities.

Seeking Excellence in End of Life Care UK (SEECare UK): a UK multi-centred service evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the care of patients dying in hospital without support from specialists in palliative care (SPC), better understand their needs and factors influencing their care. METHODS: Prospective UK-wide service evaluation including all dying adult inpatients unknown to SPC, excluding those in emergency departments/intensive care units. Holistic needs were assessed through a standardised proforma. RESULTS: 88 hospitals, 284 patients. 93% had unmet holistic needs, including physical symptoms (75%) and psycho-socio-spiritual needs (86%). People were more likely to have unmet needs and require SPC intervention at a district general hospital (DGH) than a teaching hospital/cancer centre (unmet need 98.1% vs 91.2% p0.02; intervention 70.9% vs 50.8% p0.001) and when end-of-life care plans (EOLCP) were not used (unmet need 98.3% vs 90.3% p0.006; intervention 67.2% vs 53.3% p0.02). Multivariable analyses demonstrated the independent influence of teaching/cancer hospitals (adjusted OR (aOR)0.44 CI 0.26 to 0.73) and increased SPC medical staffing (aOR1.69 CI 1.04 to 2.79) on need for intervention, however, integrating the use of EOLCP reduced the impact of SPC medical staffing. CONCLUSION: People dying in hospitals have significant and poorly identified unmet needs. Further evaluation is required to understand the relationships between patient, staff and service factors influencing this. The development, effective implementation and evaluation of structured individualised EOLCP should be a research funding priority.

Should the Surprise Question be Used as a Prognostic Tool for People With Life-limiting Illnesses?

The surprise question screening tool ("Would I be surprised if this person died within the next 12 months?") was initially developed to identify possible palliative care needs. One controversial topic regarding the surprise question is whether it should be used as a prognostic tool (predicting survival) for patients with life-limiting illnesses. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three groups of expert clinicians independently answered this question. All experts provide an overview of current literature, practical advice, and opportunities for future research. All experts reported on the inconsistency of the prognostic capabilities of the surprise question. Two of the three expert groups felt that the surprise question should not be used as a prognostic tool due to these inconsistencies. The third expert group felt that the surprise question should be used as a prognostic tool, particularly for shorter time frames. The experts all highlighted that the original rationale for the surprise question was to trigger a further conversation about future treatment and a potential shift in the focus of the care, identifying patients who many benefit from specialist palliative care or advance care planning; however, many clinicians find this discussion a difficult one to initiate. The experts agreed that the benefit of the surprise question comes from its simplicity: a one-question tool that requires no specific information about the patient's condition. More research is needed to better support the application of this tool in routine practice, particularly in noncancer populations.

Rapidly evolving gangrenous vasculitis in a critically ill patient with ulcerative colitis: a case report.

Ulcerative colitis is a disease characterised by non-granulomatous submucosal inflammation ranging from isolated proctitis to colitis. Extra-intestinal manifestations of the condition occur in multiple organ systems, with dermatological complications occurring commonly. This case report aims to highlight an uncommon dermatological complication of ulcerative colitis with particular focus on patient care and management.

Speaking up at conference question and answer sessions-disruptive behaviour typography and assessment scale.

Conferences can be a space to present new research, network, and provide an opportunity for learning. Delegates can meet field leaders, peers, top doctors, and international colleagues in various areas of expertise. Challenging behaviours, in particular in the question and answer session, but also during lectures themselves, may reduce overall enjoyment and learning. The authors of this article have written an observational reflection on some observed behaviours and have come up with a 10-point assessment scale. The article aims to stimulate discussion on what constitutes disruptive conduct, but also serves as a guide for conference session chair-people and delegates to spot patterns of contribution that may be unwelcome.

An online randomised controlled trial of prognosticating imminent death in advanced cancer patients: Clinicians give greater weight to advice from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician with a different profession.

BACKGROUND: A second opinion or a prognostic algorithm may increase prognostic accuracy. This study assessed the level to which clinicians integrate advice perceived to be coming from another clinician or a prognostic algorithm into their prognostic estimates, and how participant characteristics and nature of advice received affect this. METHODS: An online double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted. Palliative doctors, nurses and other types of healthcare professionals were randomised into study arms differing by perceived source of advice (algorithm or another clinician). In fact, the advice was the same in both arms (emanating from the PiPS-B14 prognostic model). Each participant reviewed five patient summaries. For each summary, participants: (1) provided an initial probability estimate of two-week survival (0% 'certain death'-100% 'certain survival'); (2) received advice (another estimate); (3) provided a final estimate. Weight of Advice (WOA) was calculated for each summary (0 '100% advice discounting' - 1 '0% discounting') and multilevel linear regression analyses were conducted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04568629. RESULTS: A total of 283 clinicians were included in the analysis. Clinicians integrated advice from the algorithm more than advice from another clinician (WOA difference = -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.07], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between study arm and participant profession, years of palliative care or overall experience. Advice of intermediate strength (75%) was given a lower WOA (0.31) than advice received at either the 50% (WOA 0.40) or 90% level (WOA 0.43). The overall interaction between strength of advice and study arm on WOA was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians adjusted their prognostic estimates more when advice was perceived to come from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician. Research is needed to understand how clinicians make prognostic decisions and how algorithms are used in clinical practice.

Cancer centre supportive oncology service: health economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: There have been many models of providing oncology and palliative care to hospitals. Many patients will use the hospital non-electively or semielectively, and a large proportion are likely to be in the last years of life. We describe our multidisciplinary service to treatable but not curable cancer patients at University Hospitals Sussex. The team was a mixture of clinical nurse specialists and a clinical fellow supported by dedicated palliative medicine consultant time and oncology expertise. METHODS: We identified patients with cancer who had identifiable supportive care needs and record activity with clinical coding. We used a baseline 2019/2020 dataset of national (secondary uses service) data with discharge code 79 (patients who died during that year) to compare a dataset of patients seen by the service between September 2020 and September 2021 in order to compare outcomes. While this was during COVID-19 this was when the funding was available. RESULTS: We demonstrated a reduction in length of stay by an average of 1.43 days per admission and a reduction of 0.95 episodes of readmission rates. However, the costs of those admissions were found to be marginally higher. Even with the costs of the service, there is a clear return on investment with a benefit cost ratio of 1.4. CONCLUSIONS: A supportive oncology service alongside or allied to acute oncology but in conjunction with palliative care is feasible and cost-effective. This would support investment in such a service and should be nationally commissioned in conjunction with palliative care services seeing all conditions.

How effective is virtual reality technology in palliative care? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of virtual reality for people living with a terminal illness is unclear. AIM: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of virtual reality use within a palliative care setting. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO (CRD42021240395). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2021. Search terms included 'virtual reality' and 'palliative care'. Eligibility: (1) adult (>18 years old) with a terminal illness (2) at least one virtual reality session and (3) feasibility data and/or at least one patient outcome reported. The ROB-2 and ROBINS tools assessed risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool assessed the quality of the evidence. Standardised mean differences (Hedges's g) were calculated from the pre- and post-data. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, of which five were in the meta-analysis. All studies had at least some concern for risk of bias. Virtual reality statistically significantly improved pain (p = 0.0363), tiredness (p = 0.0030), drowsiness (p = 0.0051), shortness of breath (p = 0.0284), depression (p = 0.0091) and psychological well-being (p = 0.0201). The quality of the evidence was graded as very low due to small sample sizes, non-randomisation methods and a lack of a comparator arm. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality in palliative care is feasible and acceptable. However, limited sample sizes and very low-quality studies mean that the efficacy of virtual reality needs further research.

Prognostic decision-making about imminent death within multidisciplinary teams: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on how multidisciplinary team (MDTs) make decisions about identification of imminently dying patients. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Any clinical setting providing care for imminently dying patients, excluding studies conducted solely in acute care settings. DATA SOURCES: The databases AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2021.Included studies presented original study data written in English and reported on the process or content of MDT discussions about identifying imminently dying adult patients. RESULTS: 40 studies were included in the review. Studies were primarily conducted using interviews and qualitative analysis of themes.MDT members involved in decision-making were usually doctors and nurses. Some decisions focused on professionals recognising that patients were dying, other decisions focused on initiating specific end-of-life care pathways or clarifying care goals. Most decisions provided evidence for a partial collaborative approach, with information-sharing being more common than joint decision-making. Issues with decision-making included disagreement between staff members and the fact that doctors were often regarded as final or sole decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic decision-making was often not the main focus of included studies. Based on review findings, research explicitly focusing on MDT prognostication by analysing team discussions is needed. The role of allied and other types of healthcare professionals in prognostication needs further investigation as well. A focus on specialist palliative care settings is also necessary.

Imminent death: clinician certainty and accuracy of prognostic predictions.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of predictions of dying at different cut-off thresholds and to acknowledge the extent of clinical uncertainty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING: An online prognostic test, accessible by eligible participants across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were members of the Association of Palliative Medicine. 99/166 completed the test (60%), resulting in 1980 estimates (99 participants × 20 summaries). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The probability of death occurring within 72 hours (0% certain survival-100% certain death) for 20 patient summaries. The estimates were analysed using five different thresholds: 50/50%, 40/60%, 30/70%, 20/80% and 10/90%, with percentage values between these extremes being regarded as 'indeterminate'. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the number of indeterminate cases were calculated for each cut-off. RESULTS: Using a <50% versus >50% threshold produced a PPV of 62%, an NPV of 74% and 5% indeterminate cases. When the threshold was changed to ≤10% vs ≥90%, the PPV and NPV increased to 75% and 88%, respectively, at the expense of an increase of indeterminate cases up to 62%. CONCLUSION: When doctors assign a very high (≥90%) or very low (≤10%) probability of imminent death, their prognostic accuracy is improved; however, this increases the number of 'indeterminate' cases. This suggests that clinical predictions may continue to have a role for routine prognostication but that other approaches (such as the use of prognostic scores) may be required for those cases where doctors' estimates are indeterminate.

Palliative care training in undergraduate medical, nursing and allied health: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: Impending death is poorly recognised. Many undergraduate healthcare professionals will not have experience of meeting or caring for someone who is dying. As death can occur in any setting, at any time, it is vital that all healthcare students, regardless of the setting they go on to work in, have end-of-life care (EOLC) training. The aim was to determine current palliative care training at the undergraduate level, in multiple professions, in recognising and communicating dying. METHODS: Current UK undergraduate courses in medicine, adult nursing, occupational therapy, social work and physiotherapy were included. All courses received an email asking what training is currently offered in the recognition and communication of dying, and what time was dedicated to this. RESULTS: A total of 73/198 (37%) courses responded to the request for information. 18/20 medical courses provided training in recognising when patients were dying (median 2 hours), and 17/20 provided training in the communication of dying (median 3 hours). 80% (43/54) of nursing and allied health professional courses provided some training in EOLC. Many of the course organisers expressed frustration at the lack of resources, funding and time to include more training. Those courses with more palliative care provision often had a 'champion' to advocate for it. CONCLUSIONS: Training in EOLC was inconsistent across courses and professions. Further research is needed to understand how to remove the barriers identified and to improve the consistency of current training.

An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. AIM: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. DESIGN: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]-100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. RESULTS: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted.

Measuring Daphnia life history in the wild: The efficacy of individual field cages.

Life-history studies are often conducted in a laboratory environment where it is easy to assay individual animals. However, factors such as temperature, photoperiod, and nutrition vary greatly between laboratory and field environments, making it difficult to compare results. Consequently, there is a need to study individual life histories in the field, but this is currently difficult in systems such as Daphnia where it is not possible to mark and track individual animals. Here, we present a proof of principle study showing that field cages are a reliable method for collecting individual-level life-history data in Daphnia magna. As a first step, we compared the life history of paired animals reared outside and inside cages to test the hypothesis that cages allow free flow of algal food resources. We then used a seminatural mesocosm setting to compare the performance of individual field cages versus glass jars refilled with mesocosm water each day. We found that cages did not inhibit food flow and that differences in life histories between three clones detected in the jar assays were also detectable using the much less labor-intensive field cages. We conclude that field cages are a feasible approach for collecting individual-level life-history data in systems such as Daphnia where individual animals cannot be marked and tracked.

Comparing the performance of the palliative prognostic (PaP) score with clinical predictions of survival: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced cancer, prognosis is usually determined using clinicians' predictions of survival (CPS). The palliative prognostic (PaP) score is a prognostic algorithm that was developed to predict survival in patients with advanced cancer. The score categorises patients into three risk groups in accordance with their probability of surviving for 30 days. The relative accuracy of PaP and CPS is unclear. DESIGN: This was a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Trials from inception up to June 2021. The inclusion criteria were studies in adults with advanced cancer reporting data on performance of both PaP and CPS. Data were extracted on accuracy of prognoses and where available on discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or C-index) and/or diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity). RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. One study reported a direct comparison between PaP risk groups and equivalent risk groups defined by CPS and found that PaP was as accurate as CPS. Five studies reported discrimination of PaP as a continuous total score (rather than using the previously validated risk categories) and reported C-statistics that ranged from 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54, 0.74) up to 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.92). Other studies compared PaP against CPS using non-equivalent metrics (e.g. comparing probability estimates against length of survival estimates). CONCLUSIONS: PaP risk categories and CPS are equally able to discriminate between patients with different survival probabilities. Total PaP scores show good discrimination between patients in accordance with their length of survival. The role of PaP in clinical practice still needs to be defined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021241074, 5th March 2021).