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.

Download full-text


Available from: Katherine Nelson, Jun 30, 2015
1 Follower
  • [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 · 7.13 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 · 0.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:: To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. METHODS:: The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method ( to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks® database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey ( All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. CONCLUSION:: These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.
    Critical care medicine 01/2013; 41(1):278-280. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182783b72 · 6.15 Impact Factor