Observational studyPloS one2021
Observational study of agreement between attending and trainee physicians on the surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?"
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2024Pooled it
- Early Detection of Palliative Care Needs in Critically Ill Patients Using the NECPAL Tool.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- End of life care in paediatric settings: UK national survey.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2025Article
- Analysis of the surprise question as a tool for predicting death in neonates.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Accuracy of the "Surprise Question" in Predicting Long-Term Mortality Among Older Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department: Comparison Between Emergency Physicians and Nurses in a Multicenter Longitudinal Study.Palliative medicine reports · 2024Article
- The last year of life for patients dying from cancer vs. non-cancer causes: a retrospective cross-sectional survey of bereaved relatives.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- The simple observational critical care studies: estimations by students, nurses, and physicians of in-hospital and 6-month mortality.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal end-of-life care requires identifying patients that are near the end of life. The extent to which attending physicians and trainee physicians agree on the prognoses of their patients is unknown. We investigated agreement between attending and trainee physician on the surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?", a question intended to assess mortality risk and unmet palliative care needs.
methodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study of general internal medicine patients at 7 tertiary academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. General internal medicine attending and senior trainee physician dyads were asked the surprise question for each of the patients for whom they were responsible. Surprise question response agreement was quantified by Cohen's kappa using Bayesian multilevel modeling to account for clustering by physician dyad. Mortality was recorded at 12 months.
resultsSurprise question responses encompassed 546 patients from 30 attending-trainee physician dyads on academic general internal medicine teams at 7 tertiary academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients had median age 75 years (IQR 60-85), 260 (48%) were female, and 138 (25%) were dependent for some or all activities of daily living. Trainee and attending physician responses agreed in 406 (75%) patients with adjusted Cohen's kappa of 0.54 (95% credible interval 0.41 to 0.66). Vital status was confirmed for 417 (76%) patients of whom 160 (38% of 417) had died. Using a response of "No" to predict 12-month mortality had positive likelihood ratios of 1.84 (95% CrI 1.55 to 2.22, trainee physicians) and 1.51 (95% CrI 1.30 to 1.72, attending physicians), and negative likelihood ratios of 0.31 (95% CrI 0.17 to 0.48, trainee physicians) and 0.25 (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.46, attending physicians).
conclusionTrainee and attending physician responses to the surprise question agreed in 54% of cases after correcting for chance agreement. Physicians had similar discriminative accuracy; both groups had better accuracy predicting which patients would survive as opposed to which patients would die. Different opinions of a patient's prognosis may contribute to confusion for patients and missed opportunities for engagement with palliative care services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.