Screening with the double surprise question to predict deterioration and death: an explorative study.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of palliative patients is challenging. The Surprise Question (SQ1; Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within 12 months?) is widely used to identify palliative patients. However, its predictive value is low. Therefore, we added a second question (SQ2) to SQ1: 'Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?' We studied the accuracy of this double surprise question (DSQ) in a general practice. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study with retrospective medical record review in a general practice in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Two general practitioners (GPs) answered both questions for all 292 patients aged ≥75 years (mean age 84 years). Primary outcome was 1-year death, secondary outcomes were aspects of palliative care. RESULTS: SQ1 was answered with 'no' for 161/292 patients. Of these, SQ2 was answered with 'yes' in 22 patients. Within 12 months 26 patients died, of whom 24 had been identified with SQ1 (sensitivity: 92%, specificity: 49%). Ten of them were also identified with SQ2 (sensitivity: 42%, specificity: 91%). The latter group had more contacts with their GP and more palliative care aspects were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The DSQ appears a feasible and easy applicable screening tool in general practice. It is highly effective in predicting patients in high need for palliative care and using it helps to discriminate between patients with different life expectancies and palliative care needs. Further research is necessary to confirm the findings of this study.

Caregivers of patients receiving long-term treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST): a cross-sectional assessment of their distress and burden.

BACKGROUND: TKIs are a long-term treatment for GIST, and may have an impact on caregivers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, patients and caregivers were both included when patients had been treated with TKIs for at least six months. Caregivers completed questionnaires including demographics, distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), burden (Self-Perceived Pressure from Informal Care) general health (RAND-36), comorbidity (Self-administered Comorbidity Questionnaire), social support (Social Support List - Discrepancies) and marital satisfaction (Maudsley Marital Questionnaire). Patients completed similar questionnaires, without 'burden'. We conducted analyses to explore differences between caregivers with low/moderate versus high levels of burden and low versus high levels of distress. RESULTS: Sixty-one out of seventy-one eligible couples (84%) were included in the analysis. The median age of the caregivers was 60 years; 66% were female and 78% were the patients' spouse. The median age of the patients was 66 years; 43% were female. Caregivers experienced high levels of burden and distress in 10% and 23%, respectively. Caregivers with high levels of burden perceived significantly lower mental health, less vitality, lower general health and high levels of distress. Significantly higher levels of burden were found in non-spouses, caregivers of patients with more treatment-related side-effects, caregivers who spent more hours caring, and those caring for more than one person. For distress, caregivers with high levels of distress perceived significantly more burden, lower social functioning, more role physical and emotional problems, lower mental health, less vitality and lower general health. Furthermore, high levels of distress were found in caregivers of more dependent patients and those caring for more than one person. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of the patients with GIST treated with TKI are managing well. There is a small, vulnerable group of caregivers with high levels of burden and/or distress, show more health-related problems, both physical and mental, and require adequate support.