6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity, reliability and applicability of Portuguese versions of sedation-agitation scales among critically ill patients Translated title: Validade, confiabilidade e aplicabilidade das versões em português de escalas de sedação e agitação em pacientes críticos

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Sedation scales are used to guide sedation protocols in intensive care units (ICUs). However, no sedation scale in Portuguese has ever been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of Portuguese translations of four sedation-agitation scales, among critically ill patients: Glasgow Coma Score, Ramsay, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS). DESIGN AND SETTING: Validation study in two mixed ICUs of a university hospital. METHODS: All scales were applied to 29 patients by four different critical care team members (nurse, physiotherapist, senior critical care physician and critical care resident). We tested each scale for interrater reliability and for validity, by correlations between them. Interrater agreement was measured using weighted kappa (k) and correlations used Spearman's test. RESULTS: 136 observations were made on 29 patients. All scales had at least substantial agreement (weighted k 0.68-0.90). RASS (weighted k 0.82-0.87) and SAS (weighted k 0.83-0.90) had the best agreement. All scales had a good and significant correlation with each other. CONCLUSIONS: All scales demonstrated good interrater reliability and were comparable. RASS and SAS showed the best correlations and the best agreement results in all professional categories. All these characteristics make RASS and SAS good scales for use at the bedside, to evaluate sedation-agitation among critically ill patients in terms of validity, reliability and applicability.

          Translated abstract

          CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Escalas de sedação são usadas para guiar protocolos de sedação em unidades de terapia intensiva. Entretanto, nenhuma escala em português foi avaliada. O objetivo foi avaliar, quanto a validade e confiabilidade, quatro escalas de sedação/agitação (Glasgow, Ramsay, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, RASS, e Sedation-Agitation Scale, SAS) traduzidas ao português em pacientes de terapia intensiva. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Estudo de validação em duas UTIs de hospital universitário. MÉTODOS: Todas as escalas foram aplicadas a 29 pacientes por quatro membros da equipe multiprofissional (uma enfermeira, um fisioterapeuta, um médico intensivista e um residente de medicina intensiva). Cada escala foi testada para confiabilidade interobservador e para validade, usando-se a correlação entre elas. A concordância foi medida pelo kappa ponderado e as correlações foram feitas pelo teste de Spearman. RESULTADOS: Todas as escalas tiveram uma concordância substancial (k ponderado 0,68-0,90). As escalas RASS (k ponderado 0,82-0,87) e SAS (k ponderado 0,83-0,90) tiveram a melhor concordância. Todas as escalas tiveram concordância boa e significante entre elas. CONCLUSÕES: Todas as escalas tiveram boa concordância interobservador e foram comparáveis entre elas. As escalas RASS e SAS tiveram a melhor correlação entre elas e os melhores resultados de concordância entre as categorias multiprofissionais. Estas características fazem com que as escalas RASS e SAS sejam boas para a avaliação de sedação e agitação de pacientes críticos em termos de validade, confiabilidade e aplicabilidade.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients.

          Sedative medications are widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Structured assessment of sedation and agitation is useful to titrate sedative medications and to evaluate agitated behavior, yet existing sedation scales have limitations. We measured inter-rater reliability and validity of a new 10-level (+4 "combative" to -5 "unarousable") scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), in two phases. In phase 1, we demonstrated excellent (r = 0.956, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.948; kappa = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.75) inter-rater reliability among five investigators (two physicians, two nurses, and one pharmacist) in adult ICU patient encounters (n = 192). Robust inter-rater reliability (r = 0.922-0.983) (kappa = 0.64-0.82) was demonstrated for patients from medical, surgical, cardiac surgery, coronary, and neuroscience ICUs, patients with and without mechanical ventilation, and patients with and without sedative medications. In validity testing, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unresponsive," including all patient subgroups (r = 0.84-0.98). In the second phase, after implementation of RASS in our medical ICU, inter-rater reliability between a nurse educator and 27 RASS-trained bedside nurses in 101 patient encounters was high (r = 0.964, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.950; kappa = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.69, 0.90) and very good for all subgroups (r = 0.773-0.970, kappa = 0.66-0.89). Correlations between RASS and the Ramsay sedation scale (r = -0.78) and the Sedation Agitation Scale (r = 0.78) confirmed validity. Our nurses described RASS as logical, easy to administer, and readily recalled. RASS has high reliability and validity in medical and surgical, ventilated and nonventilated, and sedated and nonsedated adult ICU patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.

            In the intensive care unit (ICU), delirium is a common yet underdiagnosed form of organ dysfunction, and its contribution to patient outcomes is unclear. To determine if delirium is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, including 6-month mortality and length of stay among ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Prospective cohort study enrolling 275 consecutive mechanically ventilated patients admitted to adult medical and coronary ICUs of a US university-based medical center between February 2000 and May 2001. Patients were followed up for development of delirium over 2158 ICU days using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Primary outcomes included 6-month mortality, overall hospital length of stay, and length of stay in the post-ICU period. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days and cognitive impairment at hospital discharge. Of 275 patients, 51 (18.5%) had persistent coma and died in the hospital. Among the remaining 224 patients, 183 (81.7%) developed delirium at some point during the ICU stay. Baseline demographics including age, comorbidity scores, dementia scores, activities of daily living, severity of illness, and admission diagnoses were similar between those with and without delirium (P>.05 for all). Patients who developed delirium had higher 6-month mortality rates (34% vs 15%, P =.03) and spent 10 days longer in the hospital than those who never developed delirium (P<.001). After adjusting for covariates (including age, severity of illness, comorbid conditions, coma, and use of sedatives or analgesic medications), delirium was independently associated with higher 6-month mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-7.7; P =.008), and longer hospital stay (adjusted HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.0; P<.001). Delirium in the ICU was also independently associated with a longer post-ICU stay (adjusted HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3; P =.009), fewer median days alive and without mechanical ventilation (19 [interquartile range, 4-23] vs 24 [19-26]; adjusted P =.03), and a higher incidence of cognitive impairment at hospital discharge (adjusted HR, 9.1; 95% CI, 2.3-35.3; P =.002). Delirium was an independent predictor of higher 6-month mortality and longer hospital stay even after adjusting for relevant covariates including coma, sedatives, and analgesics in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).

              Goal-directed delivery of sedative and analgesic medications is recommended as standard care in intensive care units (ICUs) because of the impact these medications have on ventilator weaning and ICU length of stay, but few of the available sedation scales have been appropriately tested for reliability and validity. To test the reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Prospective cohort study. Adult medical and coronary ICUs of a university-based medical center. Thirty-eight medical ICU patients enrolled for reliability testing (46% receiving mechanical ventilation) from July 21, 1999, to September 7, 1999, and an independent cohort of 275 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled for validity testing from February 1, 2000, to May 3, 2001. Interrater reliability of the RASS, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and Ramsay Scale (RS); validity of the RASS correlated with reference standard ratings, assessments of content of consciousness, GCS scores, doses of sedatives and analgesics, and bispectral electroencephalography. In 290-paired observations by nurses, results of both the RASS and RS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.91 and 0.94, respectively), which were both superior to the GCS (weighted kappa, 0.64; P<.001 for both comparisons). Criterion validity was tested in 411-paired observations in the first 96 patients of the validation cohort, in whom the RASS showed significant differences between levels of consciousness (P<.001 for all) and correctly identified fluctuations within patients over time (P<.001). In addition, 5 methods were used to test the construct validity of the RASS, including correlation with an attention screening examination (r = 0.78, P<.001), GCS scores (r = 0.91, P<.001), quantity of different psychoactive medication dosages 8 hours prior to assessment (eg, lorazepam: r = - 0.31, P<.001), successful extubation (P =.07), and bispectral electroencephalography (r = 0.63, P<.001). Face validity was demonstrated via a survey of 26 critical care nurses, which the results showed that 92% agreed or strongly agreed with the RASS scoring scheme, and 81% agreed or strongly agreed that the instrument provided a consensus for goal-directed delivery of medications. The RASS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and criterion, construct, and face validity. This is the first sedation scale to be validated for its ability to detect changes in sedation status over consecutive days of ICU care, against constructs of level of consciousness and delirium, and correlated with the administered dose of sedative and analgesic medications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                spmj
                Sao Paulo Medical Journal
                Sao Paulo Med. J.
                Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM (São Paulo, SP, Brazil )
                1516-3180
                1806-9460
                July 2008
                : 126
                : 4
                : 215-219
                Affiliations
                [01] São Paulo orgnameUniversidade de São Paulo orgdiv1Faculdade de Medicina orgdiv2Hospital das Clínicas Brazil
                Article
                S1516-31802008000400003 S1516-3180(08)12600403
                b8db04da-8175-44d3-824e-88d26393bdfb

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 09 August 2007
                : 17 June 2008
                : 21 September 2007
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 18, Pages: 5
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Original article

                Patient monitoring,Sedatives,Psychomotor agitation,Critical care,Reliability and validity,Monitorização fisiológica,Hipnóticos e sedativos,Agitação psicomotora,Cuidados críticos,Reprodutibilidade dos testes

                Comments

                Comment on this article