Eliminating the Surprise Question Leaves Home Care Providers With Few Options for Identifying Mortality Risk

Abstract

Background:

Precision health initiatives for end-of-life planning require robust methods for identifying patient risk for decline and mortality. The Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) surprise question (SQ; M1034 Overall Status) is the primary tool for evaluating risks in homebound older adults. However, the OASIS-D, Released in 2019, eliminates this question. This study examines the prognostic ability of 12- and 24-month mortality risk reflected in the OASIS-SQ and develops an alternative approach for classifying mortality risk to support decision-making in the absence of the OASIS-SQ.

Design:

Retrospective secondary data analysis.

Setting/Participants:

A nationally representative sample of 69 097 OASIS-C assessments (2012) linked to the Master Beneficiary Summary file (2012 and 2013).

Measurements:

Survival analysis, k-means clustering, and Cohen κ coefficient with Z test.

Results:

The OASIS-SQ predicts mortality (35% at 12 and 45% at 24 months; P < .001). Cluster analysis identified 2 risk groups: OASIS activity of daily living “ADL total scores” >15 = (lower risk) and ≤15 = (higher risk) for 24-month mortality. Model agreement is weak for both cluster 1 and cluster 2, the OASIS-SQ κ = 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = .19 to .21, and “alive/not alive” κ = .17, 95% CI = .16 to .18.

Conclusion:

The OASIS-SQ and “ADL total score” are almost equally likely to predict 24-month mortality; therefore, it was reasonable to use the “ADL total score” as a substitute for the OASIS-SQ. Removal of the OASIS-SQ leaves home care providers with few clear options for risk screening resulting in missed opportunities to refer to palliative or hospice services.

Keywords

terminal care prognostication care transitions nursing informatics home care services hospice and palliative care nursing electronic health record older adults

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Huang

O’Connor

Lee

. Nurses’ views regarding implementing advance care planning for older people: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(15-16):2057–2073.

Lyles

Lunn

Obedin-Maliver

Bibbins-Domingo

. The new era of precision population health: insights for the All of Us Research Program and beyond. J Trans Med. 2018;16(1):211.

O’Caoimh

Cornally

Weathers

, et al. Risk prediction in the community: a systematic review of case-finding instruments that predict adverse healthcare outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. Maturitas. 2015;82(1):3–21.

Yourman

Lee

Schonberg

Widera

Smith

. Prognostic indices for older adults: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307(2):182–192.

Pattison

Romer

. Improving care through the end of life: launching a primary care clinic-based program. J Palliat Med. 2001;4(2):249–254.

Romo

Lynn

. The utility and value of the “Surprise Question” for patients with serious illness. Can Med Assoc J. 2017;189(33): E1072–E1073.

White

Kupeli

Vickerstaff

Stone

. How accurate is the ‘Surprise Question’ at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):139.

Home Health Quality Reporting Program. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). (online). https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HomeHealthQualityInits/index.html. Published June 5, 2019. Accessed September 20, 2019.

Author Blinded for Peer Review. Mortality risk in homebound older adults predicted from routinely collected nursing data. Nurs Res. 2019;68(2):156–166.

10.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). OASIS Data Sets. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HomeHealthQualityInits/OASIS-Data-Sets.html. Published June 19, 2019. Accessed September 20, 2019.

11.

Home Health Outcome and Assessment Information Set. Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) (online). 2019. https://www.resdac.org/cms-data/files/oasis. Accessed September 20, 2019.

12.

Master Beneficiary Summary File. Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) (online). https://www.resdac.org/cms-data/files/mbsf. Accessed September 20, 2019.

13.

O’Connor

Davitt

. The Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS): a review of validity and reliability. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2012;31(4):267–301.

14.

Lunney

Lynn

Foley

Lipson

Guralnik

. Patterns of functional decline at the end of life. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(18):2387–2392.

15.

Kaplan

Meier

. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53(282):457–481.

16.

Hartigan

Wong

. Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Applied Statistics). 1979;28(1):100–108.

17.

Cohen

. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37–46.

18.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents. Accessed November 27, 2019.

19.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving Access to and Equity of Care for People with Serious Illness: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2019.

20.

Institute of Medicine. Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.

21.

Bodenheimer

Sinsky

. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573–576.