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.

  • [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. 01/2014; 29(3):191–212.
  • 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. · 6.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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 01/2014;


Available from
May 16, 2014

Similar Publications