姑息治疗量表（PPS）是严重疾病患者最广泛使用的预后工具之一。然而，当前与 PPS 评分相关的预后估计是基于十多年前的数据。根据 PPS 评分、护理环境和疾病类别生成更新的预后估计，并检查 PPS 对短期和长期生存的预测效果。这项预后研究是在一家大型学术医疗中心进行的，该中心拥有强大的住院和门诊姑息治疗实践，使用与加州生命记录数据相关的电子健康记录数据。符合资格的参与者包括在2018年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间接受姑息治疗咨询的患者。数据分析于2022年11月至2024年2月进行。姑息治疗咨询并记录PPS评分。主要结果预测1-，根据住院患者和门诊患者的 PPS 评分，显示患者 6 个月和 12 个月的死亡率和中位生存率，以及 PPS 在一系列生存时间内的表现。在亚组分析中，通过 PPS 评分评估了癌症患者与非癌症患者以及门诊患者和通过视频远程医疗就诊的患者的死亡风险。总体而言，4779 名患者（平均 [SD] 年龄，63.5 [14.8] 岁； 2437 名女性 [51.0%] 和 2342 名男性 [49.0%]）接受了姑息治疗咨询，并记录了 PPS 评分。在这些患者中，2276 名在住院患者中就诊，3080 名在门诊患者中就诊。在住院和门诊患者中，PPS 评分较低的患者 1、6 和 12 个月死亡率较高，中位生存期较短。与 PPS 评分相关的预后估计比临床医生以前常用的估计要长得多（2.3 至 11.7 倍）。 PPS 具有良好的区分住院患者中存活患者和死亡患者的能力（曲线下积分时间依赖性面积 [iAUC]，0.74），但其在门诊患者中的区分能力较低（iAUC，0.67）。 PPS 比长期生存率更好地预测 1 个月生存率。在大多数 PPS 水平下，癌症患者的死亡率高于其他严重疾病患者的死亡率。在这项预后研究中，与 PPS 评分相关的预后估计值比临床医生之前常用的估计值要长得多。根据这些发现，更新了在线计算器，以帮助临床医生得出更符合现代姑息治疗实践并且针对患者的环境和诊断组的预后估计。

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is one of the most widely used prognostic tools for patients with serious illness. However, current prognostic estimates associated with PPS scores are based on data that are over a decade old.To generate updated prognostic estimates by PPS score, care setting, and illness category, and examine how well PPS predicts short- and longer-term survival.This prognostic study was conducted at a large academic medical center with robust inpatient and outpatient palliative care practices using electronic health record data linked with data from California Vital Records. Eligible participants included patients who received a palliative care consultation between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from November 2022 to February 2024.Palliative care consultation with a PPS score documented.The primary outcomes were predicted 1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality and median survival of patients by PPS score in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and performance of the PPS across a range of survival times. In subgroup analyses, mortality risk by PPS score was estimated in patients with cancer vs noncancer illnesses and those seen in-person vs by video telemedicine in the outpatient setting.Overall, 4779 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.5 [14.8] years; 2437 female [51.0%] and 2342 male [49.0%]) had a palliative care consultation with a PPS score documented. Of these patients, 2276 were seen in the inpatient setting and 3080 were seen in the outpatient setting. In both the inpatient and outpatient settings, 1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality were higher and median survival was shorter for patients with lower PPS scores. Prognostic estimates associated with PPS scores were substantially longer (2.3- to 11.7-fold) than previous estimates commonly used by clinicians. The PPS had good ability to discriminate between patients who lived and those who died in the inpatient setting (integrated time-dependent area under the curve [iAUC], 0.74) but its discriminative ability was lower in the outpatient setting (iAUC, 0.67). The PPS better predicted 1-month survival than longer-term survival. Mortality rates were higher for patients with cancer than other serious illnesses at most PPS levels.In this prognostic study, prognostic estimates associated with PPS scores were substantially longer than previous estimates commonly used by clinicians. Based on these findings, an online calculator was updated to assist clinicians in reaching prognostic estimates that are more consistent with modern palliative care practice and specific to the patient's setting and diagnosis group.