45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice

      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

          Background

          Previous studies, which relied on hypothetical cases and chart reviews, have questioned the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status (ASA-PS) scale. We therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate its inter-rater reliability and validity in clinical practice.

          Methods

          The cohort included all adult patients (≥18 yr) who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery at a quaternary-care teaching institution in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from March 2010 to December 2011. We assessed inter-rater reliability by comparing ASA-PS scores assigned at the preoperative assessment clinic vs the operating theatre. We also assessed the validity of the ASA-PS scale by measuring its association with patients' preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes.

          Results

          The cohort included 10 864 patients, of whom 5.5% were classified as ASA I, 42.0% as ASA II, 46.7% as ASA III, and 5.8% as ASA IV. The ASA-PS score had moderate inter-rater reliability ( κ 0.61), with 67.0% of patients ( n=7279) being assigned to the same ASA-PS class in the clinic and operating theatre, and 98.6% ( n=10 712) of paired assessments being within one class of each other. The ASA-PS scale was correlated with patients' age (Spearman's ρ, 0.23), Charlson comorbidity index ( ρ=0.24), revised cardiac risk index ( ρ=0.40), and hospital length of stay ( ρ=0.16). It had moderate ability to predict in-hospital mortality (receiver-operating characteristic curve area 0.69) and cardiac complications (receiver-operating characteristic curve area 0.70).

          Conclusions

          Consistent with its inherent subjectivity, the ASA-PS scale has moderate inter-rater reliability in clinical practice. It also demonstrates validity as a marker of patients' preoperative health status.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

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

          Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

          Interest has increased in recent years in incorporating health status measures into clinical practice for use at the individual-patient level. We propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: (1) practical features, (2) breadth of health measured, (3) depth of health measured, (4) precision for cross-sectional assessment, (5) precision for longitudinal monitoring and (6) validity. We evaluate five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) that have been proposed for use in clinical practice. We conducted an analytical literature review to evaluate the six measurement standards for individual-patient applications across the five surveys. The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications. Across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% CIs were very wide. There was little evidence of the validity of the five surveys for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The health status surveys examined in this paper may not be suitable for monitoring the health and treatment status of individual patients. Clinical usefulness of existing measures might be demonstrated as clinical experience is broadened. At this time, however, it seems that new instruments, or adaptation of existing measures and scaling methods, are needed for individual-patient assessment and monitoring.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome.

            In a prospective study of 6301 surgical patients in a university hospital, we examined the strength of association between ASA physical status classification and perioperative risk factors, and postoperative outcome, using both univariate analysis and calculation of the odds ratio of the risk of developing a postoperative complication by means of a logistic regression model. Univariate analysis showed a significant correlation (P < 0.05) between ASA class and perioperative variables (intraoperative blood loss, duration of postoperative ventilation and duration of intensive care stay), postoperative complications and mortality rate. Univariate analysis of individual preoperative risk factors demonstrated their importance in the development of postoperative complications in the related organ systems. Estimating the increased risk odds ratio for single variables, we found that the risk of complication was influenced mainly by ASA class IV (risk odds ratio = 4.2) and ASA class III (risk odds ratio = 2.2). We conclude that ASA physical status classification was a predictor of postoperative outcome.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals.

              The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has demonstrated quality improvement in the VA and pilot study of 14 academic institutions. The objective was to show that American College of Surgeons (ACS)-NSQIP helps all enrolled hospitals. ACS-NSQIP data was used to evaluate improvement in hospitals longitudinally over 3 years (2005-2007). Improvement was defined as reduction in risk-adjusted "Observed/Expected" (O/E) ratios between periods with risk adjustment held constant. Multivariable logistic regression-based adjustment was performed and included indicators for procedure groups. Additionally, morbidity counts were modeled using a negative binomial model, to estimate the number of avoided complications. Multiple perspectives reflected improvement over time. In the analysis of 118 hospitals (2006-2007), 66% of hospitals improved risk-adjusted mortality (mean O/E improvement: 0.174; P < 0.05) and 82% improved risk adjusted complication rates (mean improvement: 0.114; P < 0.05). Correlations between starting O/E and improvement (0.834 for mortality, 0.652 for morbidity), as well as relative risk, revealed that initially worse-performing hospitals had more likelihood of improvement. Nonetheless, well-performing hospitals also improved. Modeling morbidity counts, 183 hospitals (2007), avoided ~9598 potential complications: ~52/hospital. Due to sampling this may represent only 1 of 5 to 1of 10 of the true total. Improvement reflected aggregate performance across all types of hospitals (academic/community, urban/rural). Changes in patient risk over time had important contributions to the effect. ACS-NSQIP indicates that surgical outcomes improve across all participating hospitals in the private sector. Improvement is reflected for both poor- and well-performing facilities. NSQIP hospitals appear to be avoiding substantial numbers of complications- improving care, and reducing costs. Changes in risk over time merit further study.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Handling editor
                Journal
                Br J Anaesth
                Br J Anaesth
                bjaint
                brjana
                BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia
                Oxford University Press
                0007-0912
                1471-6771
                September 2014
                11 April 2014
                11 April 2014
                : 113
                : 3
                : 424-432
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesia, Toronto General Hospital and University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto General Hospital, EN 3-450, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4. E-mail: d.wijeysundera@ 123456utoronto.ca
                Article
                aeu100
                10.1093/bja/aeu100
                4136425
                24727705
                d69baa93-40ef-49cb-8b56-c3e834984bb1
                © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 09 February 2014
                Categories
                Clinical Practice

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                anaesthesiology,health status,reliability and validity
                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                anaesthesiology, health status, reliability and validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article