Clinicians 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. Searches 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. A 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). There 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. PROSPERO CRD42016046564 .

Prognostic 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. To examine the accuracy of clinicians’ estimates of survival and to determine if any clinical profession is better at doing so than another. MEDLINE, 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. Inclusion 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. A 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). 4,642 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. High 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. Studies 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. Further research is needed to understand how clinical predictions are formulated and how their accuracy can be improved.

Pain is underdetected and undertreated in people with dementia. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of pain in people with dementia admitted to general hospitals and explore the association between pain and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 230 people, aged above 70, with dementia and unplanned medical admissions to 2 UK hospitals. Participants were assessed at baseline and every 4 days for self-reported pain (yes/no question and FACES scale) and observed pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scale [PAINAD]) at movement and at rest, for agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitating Inventory [CMAI]) and BPSD (Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer Disease Scale [BEHAVE-AD]). On admission, 27% of participants self-reported pain rising to 39% on at least 1 occasion during admission. Half of them were able to complete the FACES scale, this proportion decreasing with more severe dementia. Using the PAINAD, 19% had pain at rest and 57% had pain on movement on at least 1 occasion (in 16%, this was persistent throughout the admission). In controlled analyses, pain was not associated with CMAI scores but was strongly associated with total BEHAVE-AD scores, both when pain was assessed on movement (β = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07-0.32, P = 0.002) and at rest (β = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14-0.69, P = 0.003). The association was the strongest for aggression and anxiety. Pain was common in people with dementia admitted to the acute hospital and associated with BPSD. Improved pain management may reduce distressing behaviours and improve the quality of hospital care for people with dementia.

Background: Dementia is common in older people admitted to acute hospitals. There are concerns about the quality of care they receive. Behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD) seem to be particularly challenging for hospital staff.Aims: To define the prevalence of BPSD and explore their clinical associations.Method: Longitudinal cohort study of 230 people with dementia, aged over 70, admitted to hospital for acute medical illness, and assessed for BPSD at admission and every 4 (±1) days until discharge. Other measures included length of stay, care quality indicators, adverse events and mortality.Results: Participants were very impaired; 46% at Functional Assessment Staging Scale (FAST) stage 6d or above (doubly incontinent), 75% had BPSD, and 43% had some BPSD that were moderately/severely troubling to staff. Most common were aggression (57%), activity disturbance (44%), sleep disturbance (42%) and anxiety (35%).Conclusions: 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.

Background: The acute hospital is a challenging place for a person with dementia. Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common and may be exacerbated by the hospital environment. Concerns have been raised about how BPSD are managed in this setting and about over reliance on neuroleptic medication. This study aimed to investigate how BPSD are managed in UK acute hospitals.Method(s): A longitudinal cohort of 230 patients with dementia admitted to two acute NHS hospitals. BPSD were measured every four days (Behave‐AD scale), as well as documentation of pharmacological prescriptions and non‐pharmacological management.Results: The overall prevalence of BPSD was 75%, with aggression and activity disturbance being the most common. Antipsychotics were prescribed for 28 (12%) patients; 70% of these prescriptions were new on admission. Benzodiazepines were prescribed for 27 (12%) patients, antidepressants were prescribed for 37 (16%) patients, and sedatives were prescribed for 14 (3%) patients. Patients who were prescribed antipsychotics, after adjusting for end of life medication, age and dementia severity, were significantly more likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio 5.78, 95% CI 1.57, 21.26, p = 0.008). Non‐pharmacological management was used in 55% of participants, most commonly psychosocial interventions (36%) with little evidence of monitoring their effectiveness. A form of restraint was used during 50 (22%) patients' admissions.Conclusions: Antipsychotic medications and psychosocial interventions were the main methods used to manage BPSD; however, these were not implemented or monitored in a systematic fashion.

Pain and delirium are common in people with dementia admitted to hospitals. These are often under-diagnosed and under-treated. Pain is implicated as a cause of delirium but this association has not been investigated in this setting. To investigate the relationship between pain and delirium in people with dementia, on admission and throughout a hospital admission. Exploratory secondary analysis of observational prospective longitudinal cohort data. Two acute hospitals in the UK. Two-hundred and thirty participants aged ≥70 years were assessed for dementia severity, delirium ((Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD)) scale and prescription of analgesics. Logistic and linear regressions explored the relationship between pain and delirium using cross-sectional data. Pain at rest developed in 49%, and pain during activity for 26% of participants during their inpatient stay. Incident delirium developed in 15%, of participants, and 42% remained delirious for at least two assessments. Of the 35% of participants who were delirious and unable to self-report pain, 33% of these participants experienced pain at rest, and 56 experienced pain during activity. The odds of being delirious were 3.26 times higher in participants experiencing pain at rest (95% Confidence Interval 1.03–10.25, P = 0.044). An association between pain at rest and delirium was found, suggesting pain may be a risk factor for delirium. Since pain and delirium were found to persist and develop during an inpatient stay, regular pain and delirium assessments are required to manage pain and delirium effectively.