BackgroundClinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The ‘Surprise Question’ (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality.MethodsSearches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.ResultsA total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6–80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7–86.3).ConclusionsThere was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016046564.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0907-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPrognostic accuracy in palliative care is valued by patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Previous reviews suggest clinicians are inaccurate at survival estimates, but have only reported the accuracy of estimates on patients with a cancer diagnosis.ObjectivesTo examine the accuracy of clinicians’ estimates of survival and to determine if any clinical profession is better at doing so than another.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Trials. All databases were searched from the start of the database up to June 2015. Reference lists of eligible articles were also checked.Eligibility CriteriaInclusion criteria: patients over 18, palliative population and setting, quantifiable estimate based on real patients, full publication written in English. Exclusion criteria: if the estimate was following an intervention, such as surgery, or the patient was artificially ventilated or in intensive care.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsA quality assessment was completed with the QUIPS tool. Data on the reported accuracy of estimates and information about the clinicians were extracted. Studies were grouped by type of estimate: categorical (the clinician had a predetermined list of outcomes to choose from), continuous (open-ended estimate), or probabilistic (likelihood of surviving a particular time frame).Results4,642 records were identified; 42 studies fully met the review criteria. Wide variation was shown with categorical estimates (range 23% to 78%) and continuous estimates ranged between an underestimate of 86 days to an overestimate of 93 days. The four papers which used probabilistic estimates tended to show greater accuracy (c-statistics of 0.74–0.78). Information available about the clinicians providing the estimates was limited. Overall, there was no clear “expert” subgroup of clinicians identified.LimitationsHigh heterogeneity limited the analyses possible and prevented an overall accuracy being reported. Data were extracted using a standardised tool, by one reviewer, which could have introduced bias. Devising search terms for prognostic studies is challenging. Every attempt was made to devise search terms that were sufficiently sensitive to detect all prognostic studies; however, it remains possible that some studies were not identified.ConclusionStudies of prognostic accuracy in palliative care are heterogeneous, but the evidence suggests that clinicians’ predictions are frequently inaccurate. No sub-group of clinicians was consistently shown to be more accurate than any other.Implications of Key FindingsFurther research is needed to understand how clinical predictions are formulated and how their accuracy can be improved.

We found that BPSD are very common in older people admitted to an acute hospital. Patients and staff would benefit from more specialist psychiatric support.