The demand for palliative care services globally has outpaced service availability, particularly in low and middle-income countries [1]. This is expected to continue as the population ages and the burden of noncommunicable disease increases. Thus, non-specialist palliative care health professionals may be required to manage care. The Supportive And Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™) [2] is one instrument available for non-specialist palliative care clinicians which may assist them in assessing unmet palliative needs and care planning.

Evidence suggests that clinicians feel inadequately prepared to conduct end-of-life discussions with patients who are terminally ill [3,4,5] and are also unsure of the appropriate time to start these discussions or whether to involve a specialist palliative care team [5,6,7]. Clinicians have reported their discomfort when addressing the topic of death with seriously ill patients [5].

From the perspective of patients with advanced illness, honest information from a trusted health care professional is the preference of most [7]. A survey study conducted in Canada involving 434 patients with advanced illness found over half of patients felt it was ‘very important’ to have a sense of control over decision-making regarding their care and 56% felt it was ‘extremely important’ not to be kept alive on life support if there was little hope of recovery [7]. The default medical decision to do everything to save life may be contributing to delays in referral to a specialist palliative care team, burdensome medical treatment and poorer quality of life for many patients [8]. Thus, a standardised, reliable and validated method of assessing and planning care in collaboration with the patient is required.

The terms ‘end-of-life’ and ‘terminally ill’ have been conceptualised as synonymous and ‘apply to patients with progressive disease with months or less of expected survival.’ [9]. In the United States there is consensus that referral to specialist palliative care services is required at the time of diagnosis for patients with neurologic disease, frailty, multimorbidity, advanced cancer, organ or cognitive impairment, patients with a high symptom burden and patients with onerous family or caregiver needs [10]. However with an ageing population and increased levels of dementia and frailty non-palliative care clinicians need a tool with a common language to identify those who are nearing the end of life and to promote a palliative approach to care. According to the High Authority for Health, an independent organisation that promotes quality outcomes in the fields of health, sociology and medicine a palliative approach is, “a way of addressing end-of-life issues early on: make time to talk about ethical questions, psychological support, comfort care, the right care, and give a timely thought to the likely palliative care needs of people approaching the end-of-life.” [11], p1.

Advance care planning, “a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care” [12] is one aspect of palliative care often provided by medical professionals which may assist in ensuring people’s needs are met, and care and communication are enhanced. Early advance care planning is vital, particularly for patients with neurodegenerative conditions before they lose capacity to express their wishes [8] “to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness.” [12] Research has revealed that patients who have had the opportunity to discuss their preferences at the end-of-life are more likely to receive care that is consistent with those preferences. Findings also include greater patient and carer satisfaction and less conflict regarding decision making when end-of-life preferences have been examined [13].

People who have life limiting conditions may benefit from the delivery of advance care planning using a systematic approach. The SPICT™, although not designed for this purpose may enhance the approach particularly when health professionals who have limited palliative care experience are required to facilitate advance care planning.

The SPICT™ [2] was designed to identify patients at risk of deteriorating or dying and to screen for unmet palliative care needs. The tool includes general indicators of deterioration and clinical indicators of life-limiting conditions. The accompanying SPICT™ guide provides prompts and tips and a suggested framework (REMAP Ready, Expect, Diagnosis, Matters, Actions and Plan) [14] for conducting future care planning conversations. The tool is reported to be simple to use and designed for use by all multidisciplinary team members in any care setting [13].

The SPICT™ was evaluated using a mixed methods participatory approach [2]. Peer review and consensus was gathered for the 15 revisions of the SPICT™ over an 18-month period. Each iteration of the tool was distributed to clinicians and policy makers internationally until consensus was reached [2]. The research team worked concurrently with clinicians in four participating units at an acute tertiary hospital in Scotland to screen all patients with advanced organ disease whose admission to hospital was unplanned (n = 130) using a checklist that included the SPICT™ general indicators, disease specific indicators and the surprise question (SQ), “Would you be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 6 to 12 months?”. Data were gathered over an 8-week period and patients were followed up for 12 months [2]. A significantly greater number of patients who died at 12-months had two or more admissions in the previous 6 months before being screened. These patients also had increased care needs and persistent symptoms despite optimal treatment. The researchers proposed that better identification, assessment and pre-emptive care planning could reduce the risk of unplanned hospital admission and prolonged inpatient stays [2]. Of note the patients’ diagnoses were limited to advanced illness which was non-malignant and ethnicity was homogenous [2]. The SQ was removed from subsequent versions of the SPICT™ and the rationale for removing it remains unclear. The SPICT™ continues to be revised and versions are available in different languages [2].

The intention of this review was to examine the impact of the SPICT™ on advance care planning and the extent of its use. The patient cohorts, languages, and contexts in which the SPICT™ is available and used were examined.

Review questions

The following primary question was addressed:

1.

How does use of the SPICT™ assist with conversations about advance care planning?

Secondary review questions were:

2.

What is the extent of the use of the SPICT™ (which patient cohorts, contexts, and countries is it used)?

3.

In which languages has the SPICT™ been validated?

4.

Does use of the SPICT™ facilitate changes in documented goals of care?

Design and methods

This scoping review was performed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis Scoping Review Framework [15] and the Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [16] was used to guide the reporting.

Preliminary literature search

An initial search focussed on inpatients with a chronic illness nearing the end of life however the search was expanded to include all care settings where the SPICT™ was being used for adults with a life-limiting chronic illness to evaluate its efficacy in advance care planning. Thus the search reflected the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care definition of palliative care “the active holistic care of individuals across all ages with serious health-related suffering due to severe illness, and especially of those near the end of life.” [17]. A life-limiting illness or condition encompasses both malignant and non-malignant diseases as well as the effects of ageing.

A preliminary search of EBSCO Medline, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Prospero and JBI Evidence Synthesis was conducted in June 2022. No current or planned systematic or scoping reviews specifically on this topic were identified. A systematic review by Teike Luthi, et al. [18], examining instruments for the identification of patients in need of palliative care in the hospital setting was identified. The current scoping review differs from the systematic review by Teike Luthi, et al. [18] as the aim was to identify and describe all research related to how the SPICT™ is used in end-of-life discussions and what influence this has on advance care planning and goals of care.

Inclusion criteriaParticipants

The population of interest was adult patients (> 18 years) with a life-limiting chronic illness.

Concept

The concept of interest was the SPICT™. Any studies incorporating the SPICT™ were included in this review since its development in 2010. Studies evaluating the SPICT™ for prognostication purposes were excluded as this was not the intent of this review.

Context

Published and unpublished studies in any language for which a translation could be obtained were included. Published and unpublished studies in any setting that met the eligibility criteria were included.

Evidence sources

This scoping review included both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. In addition, analytical observational studies including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies were considered for inclusion. Systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included. Qualitative studies, theses and dissertations were also considered if they met the inclusion criteria.

Search strategy

An initial search on this topic in the EBSCO Medline and PubMed databases was reviewed for relevant abstracts and titles to determine keywords and index terms. MESH terms used in the final search strategy included: Communication; Documentation; Palliative Care; Patient Care Planning; Advance Care Plan; Decision Making and Chronic Disease. The research abstract for this scoping review was registered on the Center for Open Science website (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DN27C) in August 2022 prior to performing the definitive search in September. The search was conducted on 28th September 2022 and date limited i.e., 2010-September 2022. The database and grey literature searches were updated on 27th January 2024 to identify further studies published beyond this date.

Electronic databases searched included EBSCO Medline, PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, APA Psych Info, ProQuest One Theses and Dissertations Global. Publications listed on the SPICT website (www.spict.org.uk) were cross checked with the records included from the electronic databases, duplicates were removed and further records were added to the Endnote library for screening. Reference lists of included studies were reviewed for additional studies.

All websites searched for additional records (grey literature sources) are included in supplementary file 1. The expanded search strategy for the EBSCO Medline database is also provided in supplementary file 1.

Study selection

All records were collated in an EndNote library. Duplicate records were removed manually by RE. The screening process involved two independent reviewers (MM and RE) reading titles and abstracts. Full text screening was conducted independently by the same two reviewers. Any discrepancies between the two reviewers at each stage of the process was resolved following review and consultation of a third reviewer (BK). Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded with a reason recorded. Data extracted from included studies has been recorded in the standardised data extraction form (supplementary file 2). Critical appraisal of included studies was not performed and thus studies were not excluded based on methodological quality.

Data synthesis

Key aspects of the included studies were summarised in tables. Also consistent with the approach for a scoping review a textual narrative synthesis [19] was performed with the primary aim of addressing the review questions.