ArticlePalliative medicine reports2024
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.
Article in Palliative medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with a positive response to the surprise question in complex chronic patients treated by advanced practice nurses in primary care.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- The surprise question: predictive accuracy in an unselected emergency department population - a prospective study in nurses and physicians.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Early Palliative Care in the Emergency Department: A Concept Clarification.Journal of caring sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The "surprise question" (SQ) ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is the most frequently used screening tool in emergency departments (EDs) to identify patients with poor prognosis and potential unmet palliative needs. Objective: To test and compare the accuracy of the SQ between emergency nurses (ENs) and emergency physicians (EPs) in predicting long-term mortality among older patients (OP) in the ED. Design and Setting/Subjects: A prospective cohort study of OPs (≥75 years) conducted in two Belgian EDs. EPs and ENs answered the SQ for the patients they cared for. Positive SQ (SQ+) was defined as a "no" answer. One-year mortality was assessed by phone call. Results: EPs and ENs both answered the SQ for 291 OPs (mean age 83.2 ± 5.4, males 42.6%). The SQ was positive in 43% and 40.6%, respectively. Predictive values were similar in both groups: sensitivity, specificity, c-statistics, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 0.79 (0.66-0.88), 0.68 (0.62-0.76), 0.69 (0.63-0.75), 0.92 (0.86-0.96), and 0.4 (0.31-0.50), respectively, for EPs and 0.71 (0.57-0.82), 0.69 (0.62-0.75), 0.69 (0.63-0.75), 0.89 (0.83-0.93), and 0.41 (0.31-0.51), respectively, for ENs. SQ + was associated with a higher mortality risk in both group (EPs hazard ratio: 3.2 [1.6-6.7], Conclusion: The SQ is a simple tool to identify older ED patients at high mortality risk. Concordant responses from EPs and ENs are more predictive than either alone.
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.