Reliability of the Sedation-Agitation Scale between nurses and doctors

Work Health Solutions Ltd., PO Box 48104, Silverstream, Wellington, New Zealand.
Intensive and Critical Care Nursing 09/2008; 24(4):211-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2007.11.004
Source: PubMed


This study determined the inter-rater reliability of the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) when used by staff in a tertiary level general intensive care unit (ICU). The study was designed to answer the question in the 'real world', with minimum patient exclusion criteria, do nurses and doctors rate ICU patient's sedation levels using the SAS similarly? A convenient sample of 35 nursing and seven medical staff and a randomly selected sample of 69 patients were used. A nurse and a doctor rated each patient simultaneously using the SAS, with a systematic five-stage arousal process. The results showed that there was exact agreement between the nurses' and doctors' scores in 74% of assessments. The weighted kappa finding of 0.82 indicates very good agreement (reliability). The mean SAS scores recorded for nurses (2.33+/-1.21) and doctors (2.36+/-1.35) were similar. Intraclass correlations for single measures (r=.921, p<.001) and average measures (r=.959, p<.001) indicated individuals who completed multiple ratings did not introduce bias. Where there was a difference between the paired ratings, these were only one level of the SAS away from each other. This research indicates nurses and doctors rate patients' levels of sedation similarly using the SAS. It also provides support for the use of the instrument in general ICUs outside the USA. Research is now needed to determine the value of the SAS in guiding clinical decision-making related to sedation management.

Download full-text


Available from: Katherine Nelson,
1 Follower
110 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Analgesics and sedatives are commonly prescribed in the ICU environment for patient comfort, however, recent studies have shown that these medications can themselves lead to adverse patient outcomes. Interventions that facilitate a total dose reduction in analgesic and sedative medications e.g. the use of nurse controlled protocol guided sedation, the combination of spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, and the use of short acting medications, are associated with improved outcomes such as decreased time of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. This purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the pharmacology of commonly prescribed analgesics and sedatives, and to discuss the evidence regarding best prescribing practices of these medications, to facilitate early liberation from mechanical ventilation and to promote animation in critically ill patients.
    Minerva anestesiologica 03/2012; 78(3):369-80. · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Delirium evaluation in patients in the ICU requires the use of an arousal/sedation assessment tool prior to assessing consciousness. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) are well-validated arousal/sedation tools. We sought to assess the concordance of RASS and SAS assessments in determining eligibility of patients in the ICU for delirium screening using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). We performed a prospective cohort study in the adult medical, surgical, and progressive (step-down) ICUs of a tertiary care, university-affiliated, urban hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. The cohort included 975 admissions to the ICU between January and October 2009. The outcome measures of interest were the correlation and agreement between RASS and SAS measurements. In 2,469 RASS and SAS paired screens, the rank correlation using the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.91, and the agreement between the two screening tools for assessing CAM-ICU eligibility as estimated by the κ coefficient was 0.93. Analysis showed that 70.1% of screens were eligible for CAM-ICU assessment using RASS (7.1% sedated [RASS −3 to −1]; 62.6% calm [0]; and 0.4% restless, agitated [+1 to +3]), compared with 72.1% using SAS (5% sedated [SAS 3]; 66.5% calm [4]; and 0.6% anxious, agitated [5, 6]). In the mechanically ventilated subgroup, RASS identified 19.1% CAM-ICU eligible patients compared with 24.6% by SAS. The correlation coefficient in this subgroup was 0.70 and the agreement was 0.81. Both SAS and RASS led to similar rates of delirium assessment using the CAM-ICU.
    Chest 04/2012; 142(1):48-54. DOI:10.1378/chest.11-2100 · 7.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to determine validity and reliability of the Moline-Roberts Pharmacologic Sedation Scale. A multidisciplinary expert panel was used to establish content validity. Reliability was determined by a prospective, randomized, psychometric evaluation of sedation assignment made by 2 nurse research assistants. The study was conducted in a 260-bed nonprofit community hospital. Eighty-six subjects were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: receiving opioids, benzodiazepines, or anesthetic agents; ability to understand English; and normal or near-normal hearing. Two bachelor of science in nursing-prepared nurses observed each subject and independently documented sedation levels at 3 or 4 points in time for each patient. Content validity resulted in 100% agreement that the sedation scale reflected the concept of pharmacologic sedation. Internal reliability as measured by Cronbach α was .983 to .996. For each of the scale's components, interrater reliability using Cohen κ ranged from 76.4% to 97.4%. The Cohen κ P value for all components at all points in time was statistically significant at P < .001. The Moline-Roberts Pharmacologic Sedation Scale demonstrated content validity and strong reliability. The sedation scale has clinical value in providing a standardized assessment and quantitative assignment of pharmacologically induced sedation that is reflective of the continuum of sedation. Information obtained regarding the patient's sedation should be documented, trended, and incorporated into the decision-making process regarding additional administration of agents that produce or potentiate sedation. Further research is needed in populations not included in this study.
    Clinical nurse specialist CNS 05/2012; 26(3):140-8. DOI:10.1097/NUR.0b013e3182503fd6 · 0.99 Impact Factor
Show more