The Analysis of Swearing Word Translation in Joker Movie Subtitle

This research discusses the analysis of swearing words translation in the Joker movie. The purpose of this research is to describe the type of swearing word and the procedure used in translating swearing word. This study uses qualitative methods. The research data were obtained from English subtitles to Indonesian Joker movies. To answer the research question, the researcher used the theory types of swearing word proposed by Swan M. (1995) and procedure translation proposed by Newmark (1988) The results revealed that there were 49 swearing words. There are 2 types of swearing words namely: strong and weak swearing words. For strong swear words classified to exclamation of annoyance, surprise, insult, surprise question and emphasize the emotion and the weak swear word classified to exclamation of annoyance, surprise, insult and emotion. After that, procedures translation used in translating swear words only found 5 of 15 procedure translation in Joker's subtitle, namely: cultural equivalent, synonymy, through-translation, shift or transposition, and paraphrase. The most frequently type of swearing word is emphasize an emotion from strong swear word. Furthermore, the cultural equivalent procedure is the most used in translating.

An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question

Background: The Surprise Question (‘Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?’) identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if ‘surprised’ means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. Design: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries (‘vignettes’). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]–100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently ‘no’) and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. Results: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries ( p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries ( p = 0.53). Conclusions: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted.

The ‘Surprise question’ in heart failure: a prospective cohort study

ObjectiveThe Surprise Question (SQ) is a prognostic screening tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. We assessed the SQ’s performance predicting 1-year mortality among patients in ambulatory heart failure (HF) clinics. We determined that the SQ’s performance changes according to sex and other demographic (age) and clinical characteristics, mainly left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classifications.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study in two HF clinics. To assess the performance of the SQ in predicting 1-year mortality, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and the positive and negative predictive values. To illustrate if the results of the SQ changes the probability that a patient dies within 1 year, we created Fagan’s nomograms. We report the results from the overall sample and for subgroups according to sex, age, LVEF and NYHA functional class.ResultsWe observed that the SQ showed a sensitivity of 85% identifying ambulatory patients with HF who are in the last year of life. We determined that the SQ’s performance predicting 1-year mortality was similar among women and men. The SQ performed better for patients aged under 70 years, for patients with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction, and for patients NYHA class III/IV.ConclusionsWe consider the tool an easy and fast first step to identify patients with HF who might benefit from an advance care planning discussion or a referral to palliative care due to limited life expectancy.

“The surprise questions” using variable time frames in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer

Objective Several studies supported the usefulness of “the surprise question” in terms of 1-year mortality of patients. “The surprise question” requires a “Yes” or “No” answer to the question “Would I be surprised if this patient died in [specific time frame].” However, the 1-year time frame is often too long for advanced cancer patients seen by palliative care personnel. “The surprise question” with shorter time frames is needed for decision making. We examined the accuracy of “the surprise question” for 7-day, 21-day, and 42-day survival in hospitalized patients admitted to palliative care units (PCUs). Method This was a prospective multicenter cohort study of 130 adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to 7 hospital-based PCUs in South Korea. The accuracy of “the surprise question” was compared with that of the temporal question for clinician's prediction of survival. Results We analyzed 130 inpatients who died in PCUs during the study period. The median survival was 21.0 days. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for the 7-day “the surprise question” were 46.7, 88.7, and 83.9%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for the 7-day temporal question were 6.7, 98.3, and 87.7%, respectively. The c-indices of the 7-day “the surprise question” and 7-day temporal question were 0.662 (95% CI: 0.539–0.785) and 0.521 (95% CI: 0.464–0.579), respectively. The c-indices of the 42-day “the surprise question” and 42-day temporal question were 0.554 (95% CI: 0.509–0.599) and 0.616 (95% CI: 0.569–0.663), respectively. Significance of results Surprisingly, “the surprise questions” and temporal questions had similar accuracies. The high specificities for the 7-day “the surprise question” and 7- and 21-day temporal question suggest they may be useful to rule in death if positive.

The Value of the Surprise Question to Predict One-Year Mortality in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Prospective Cohort Study

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive fatal disease with a heterogeneous disease course. Timely initiation of palliative care is often lacking. The surprise question “Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?” is increasingly used as a clinical prognostic tool in chronic diseases but has never been evaluated in IPF. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the surprise question for 1-year mortality in IPF. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this prospective cohort study, clinicians answered the surprise question for each included patient. Clinical parameters and mortality data were collected. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative, and positive predictive value of the surprise question with regard to 1-year mortality were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate which factors were associated with mortality. In addition, discriminative performance of the surprise question was assessed using the C-statistic. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In total, 140 patients were included. One-year all-cause mortality was 20% (<i>n</i> = 28). Clinicians identified patients with a survival of &#x3c;1 year with a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 82%, an accuracy of 79%, a positive predictive value of 49%, and a negative predictive value of 91%. The surprise question significantly predicted 1-year mortality in a multivariable model (OR 3.69; 95% CI 1.24–11.02; <i>p</i> = 0.019). The C-statistic of the surprise question to predict mortality was 0.75 (95% CI 0.66–0.85). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The answer on the surprise question can accurately predict 1-year mortality in IPF. Hence, this simple tool may enable timely focus on palliative care for patients with IPF.

Computing Machinery, Surprise and Originality

Lady Lovelace’s notes on Babbage’s Analytical Engine (1843) never refer to the concept of surprise. Having some pretension to ‘originate’ something—unlike the Analytical Engine—is neither necessary nor sufficient to being able to surprise someone. Turing nevertheless translates Lovelace’s ‘this machine is incapable of originating something’ in terms of a hypothetical ‘computers cannot take us by surprise’ objection to the idea that machines may be deemed capable of thinking. To understand the contemporary significance of what is missed in Turing’s ‘surprise’ translation of Lovelace’s insight, one needs to distinguish between trivial surprises (which stem from our limited ability to store data and process it) and those events, propositions or encounters that lead us to question our understanding of ourselves or what surrounds us. Only some of these non-trivial surprises are the product of originality endeavours. Not only is it uncommon for surprises to track such endeavours, the type of autonomy that would be required on the part of ‘digital computers’ for originality and surprise to intersect in that way goes far beyond the operational autonomy that can be achieved by ‘learning machines’. This paper argues that a salient translation of Lovelace’s originality insight—for contemporary and future ‘learning machines’—is an upside-down version of Turing’s surprise question: can computers be surprised by us in a non-trivial, ‘co-produced’ way?

Implementation of Surprise Question Assessments using the Electronic Health Record in Older Adults with Advanced CKD

Background. The Surprise Question (SQ; "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a validated prognostication tool for mortality and hospitalization among patients with advanced CKD. Barriers in clinical workflow have slowed SQ implementation into practice. Objectives. (1) To evaluate implementation outcomes following use of electronic health record (EHR) decision support to automate collection of the SQ. (2) To assess the prognostic utility of the SQ for mortality and hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visits. Methods. We developed and implemented a best practice alert (BPA) in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify nephrology outpatients > 60 years of age with an eGFR<30 ml/min. At appointment, the BPA prompted the physician to answer the SQ. We assessed the rate and timeliness of provider responses. We conducted a post-hoc open-ended survey to assess physician perceptions of SQ implementation. We assessed the SQ's prognostic utility in survival and time-to-hospital encounter (hospitalization/ER visit) analyses. Results. Among 510 patients for whom the BPA triggered, 95 (18.6%) had the SQ completed by 16 physicians. Among those completed, nearly all (97.9%) were on appointment day, and 61 (64.2%) the first time the BPA fired. Providers answered "No" for 27 (28.4%) and "Yes" for 68 (71.6%) patients. By 12 months, 6 (22.2%) "No" patients died; 3 (4.4%) "Yes" patients died (hazards ratio [HR] 2.86, ref:Yes, 95% CI[1.06, 7.69]). About 35% of "No" patients and 32% of "Yes" patients had a hospital encounter by 12 months (HR 1.85, ref:Yes, 95% CI[0.93, 3.69]). Physicians noted (1) they had goals-of-care conversations unprompted; (2) EHR-based interventions alone for goals-of-care are ineffective; and (3) more robust engagement is necessary. Conclusions. We successfully integrated the SQ into the EHR to aid in clinical practice. Additional implementation efforts are needed to encourage further integration of the SQ in clinical practice.

A New Approach to the Identification of Palliative Care Needs and Advanced Chronic Patients among Nursing Home Residents

Background: Proper planning of Palliative Care in nursing homes requires advanced knowledge of the care needs that residents show. The aim of the study was to evaluate Palliative Needs and other conditions such as fragility, complexity, and prognosis and also to suggest new indicators for the establishment of the resident’s advanced chronic condition. Methods: Cross-sectional study conducted in 149 nursing homes Complex Chronic residents evaluated by trained professionals. Palliative Care Needs, assessed by the NECPAL ICO-CCOMS© tool, and fragility, case and palliative complexity and prognosis were evaluate through a comprehensive assessment. Descriptive analyses and association measures were performed setting the statistical significance at 0.05. Results: More than 50% of the residents had positive Surprise Question and other Palliative Needs and were classified as Advanced Chronic Patients. Distress and/or Severe Adaptative Disorder was the most frequent need shown by the residents and significant differences in levels of frailty and other characteristics, were found between the Positive and the Negative Surprise Question Groups. Statistically significant correlations were also found between aspects of both groups. Conclusions: Nursing homes residents show Palliative Needs regardless of the response to the Surprise Question of the NECPAL tool. Other characteristics such as presence of an intermediate level of frailty are suggested as a new perspective to identify advanced chronic patients among nursing homes residents.

The Surprise Question and Serious Illness Conversations: A pilot study

Background: Serious Illness Conversations aim to discuss patient goals. However, on acute medicine units, seriously ill patients may undergo distressing interventions until death. Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of using the Surprise Question, “Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?” to identify patients who would benefit from early Serious Illness Conversations and study any changes in the interdisciplinary team’s beliefs, confidence, and engagement as a result of asking the Surprise Question. Design: A prospective cohort pilot study with two Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Participants/context: Fifty-eight healthcare professionals working on Acute Medicine Units participated in pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. The intervention involved asking participants the Surprise Question for each patient. Patient charts were reviewed for Serious Illness Conversation documentation. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was granted by the institutions involved. Findings: Equivocal overall changes in the beliefs, confidence, and engagement of healthcare professionals were observed. Six out of 23 patients were indicated as needing a Serious Illness Conversation; chart review provided some evidence that these patients had more Serious Illness Conversation documentation compared with the 17 patients not flagged for a Serious Illness Conversation. Issues were identified in equating the Surprise Question to a Serious Illness Conversation. Discussion: Appropriate support for seriously ill patients is both a nursing professional and ethical duty. Flagging patients for conversations may act as a filtering process, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on conversations with patients who need them most. There are ethical and practical issues as to what constitutes a “serious illness” and if answering “no” to the Surprise Question always equates to a conversation. Conclusion: The barriers of time constraints and lack of training call for institutional change in order to prioritise the moral obligation of Serious Illness Conversations.