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

ABSTRACT 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.


Available from: Katherine Nelson, May 30, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose Sedation scales have the potential to facilitate effective procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). For this potential to become realized, a scale that is suitable for use in the CCL either needs to be identified or developed. Design A structured review strategy was applied. Methods To identify sedation scales, a review of Medline and CINHAL was conducted. Findings One sedation scale for the CCL, the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology Sedation Scale, and 15 intensive care unit (ICU) scales met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis of the scale's item structures and psychometric properties was then performed. Conclusion None of these scales were deemed suitable for use in the CCL. As such, further research is required to develop a new scale. The new scale should consist of more than one item to make it more effective for tracking the patient's response to medications. Specific tests required to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the new scale's psychometric properties are outlined in this article.
    Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing 06/2014; 29(3):191–212. DOI:10.1016/j.jopan.2013.05.017 · 0.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introducción El óptimo manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium ofrece al paciente crítico comodidad y seguridad, facilita el buen desarrollo de medidas de soporte y manejo integral y disminuye complicaciones, impactando en un mejor desenlace. Objetivo Actualizar la Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo publicada en Medicina Intensiva en el 2007 y dar recomendaciones para el manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium. Metodología Se reunió un grupo de 21 intensivistas procedentes de 9 países de la Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva, 3 de ellos además especialistas en epidemiología clínica y metodología para elaboración de guías. Se acogió la propuesta del Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group para emitir el grado de recomendación y evaluar la calidad de la evidencia. La fuerza de las recomendaciones fue calificada como 1 = fuerte, o 2 = débil, y la calidad de la evidencia como A = alta, B = moderada, o C = baja. Expertos en búsqueda de literatura apoyaron con esta estrategia de búsqueda: MEDLINE a través de PUBMED, bases de datos de la biblioteca Cochrane a través de The Cochrane Library y la base de datos Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud. Los miembros asignados a las 11 secciones de la guía, basándose en la revisión de la literatura, presentaron las recomendaciones, sustentadas y discutidas en sesiones plenarias, aprobando aquellas que superaron el 80% del consenso. La elaboración de las guías contó con el soporte de la Asociación Colombiana de Medicina Crítica y Cuidado Intensivo. Resultados Para la elaboración de la guía fueron finalmente seleccionadas 467 referencias, observándose un importante aumento en el número y calidad de los estudios, permitiendo realizar 64 fuertes recomendaciones con evidencia alta y moderada, contrastando con las 28 de la edición anterior. Conclusiones Esta guía contiene recomendaciones y sugerencias basadas en la mejor evidencia para el manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium del paciente crítico, incluyendo un paquete de medidas (bundle). Se destacan: evaluación del dolor y la agitación/sedación mediante escalas; usar inicialmente opioides para el control de la analgesia, adicionando técnicas multimodales para disminuir consumo de opioides; promover el menor nivel de sedación necesario, evitando la sobresedación; en caso de requerir medicamentos sedantes, escoger el más apropiado, evitando el uso rutinario de benzodiazepinas; por último, identificar factores de riesgo para delirium, prevenirlo, diagnosticarlo y manejarlo, con el medicamento más conveniente, ya sea haloperidol, antipsicóticos atípicos o dexmedetomidina, evitando el uso de benzodiazepinas y disminuyendo el uso de opioides.
    11/2013; 37(8):519–574. DOI:10.1016/j.medine.2013.04.002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim This paper reports a systematic literature review examining the range of published observational sedation-scoring instruments available in the assessment, monitoring and titration of continuous intravenous sedation to critically ill adult patients in the Emergency Department, and the extent to which validity, reliability, responsiveness and applicability of the instruments has been addressed. Background Emergency nurses are increasingly responsible for the ongoing assessment, monitoring and titration of continuous intravenous sedation, in addition to analgesia for the critically ill adult patient. One method to optimise patient sedation is to use a validated observational sedation-scoring tool. It is not clear however what the optimal instrument available is for use in this clinical context. Methods A systematic literature review methodology was employed. A range of electronic databases were searched for the period 1946–2013. Search terms incorporated “sedation scale”, “sedation scoring system”, “measuring sedation”, and “sedation tool” and were used to retrieve relevant literature. In addition, manual searches were conducted and articles retrieved from those listed in key papers. Articles were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) making sense of evidence tools. Results A total of 27 observational sedation-scoring instruments were identified. Sedation-scoring instruments can be categorised as linear or composite, the former being the most common. A wide variety of patient behaviours are used within the instruments to measure depth and quality of patient sedation. Typically sedation-scoring instruments incorporated three patient behaviours, which were then rated to generate a numerical score. The majority of the instruments have been subjected to validity and reliability testing, however few have been examined for responsiveness or applicability. Conclusions None of the 27 observational sedation-scoring instruments were designed or trialled within ED. The Richmond Agitation and Assessment Scale was identified as most suitable to be trialled prospectively within an Australian ED.
    Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal 08/2014; 18(1). DOI:10.1016/j.aenj.2014.07.001