Dataset Information

The effect of using Richmond agitation and sedation scale on hospital stay, ventilator dependence, and mortality rate in ICU inpatients: a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Managing the amount of use of sedatives due to their high side effects in the intensive care unit is essential. Sedation-agitation protocols may play an important role in this regard. However, they have not been practically applied in Iran.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of using the Richmond agitation and sedation scale on hospital stay duration and dependency rate on the intensive care unit ventilator system in Ahwaz City, Iran, in 2016-2017.

Methods

This randomised clinical trial was conducted on 74 patients. The subjects were selected by a stratified sampling method and divided into the experimental (n = 32) and control (n = 32) groups. Sedation and agitation levels were managed by the Richmond agitation and sedation scale as soon as the samples were anxious and agitated, and every 6 hours in the intervention group. However, the control group received routine care. The data obtained were analysed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic variables, such as age, gender, admission diagnosis and Glasgow coma scale scores on admission. However, they differed in terms of hospital stay duration and ventilator connection (P < 0.001), Glasgow coma scale score at the separation time from the device (P < 0.001), Glasgow coma scale score at the discharge time from the intensive care unit (P < 0.02) and intensive care unit death rate (P < 0.001). In all cases mentioned previously, the intervention group's condition was better.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, as well as the approval of validation and reliability of the Richmond agitation and sedation scale in different studies, this protocol can be very effective in optimising the use of sedatives in the intensive care unit.

SUBMITTER: Rashidi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7932456 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and other severity of illness scales rely on the Glasgow Coma Scale to measure acute neurologic dysfunction, but the Glasgow Coma Scale is unavailable or inconsistently applied in some institutions. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment that uses the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale instead of Glasgow Coma Scale.Prospective cohort study.Medical and surgical ICUs within a large, tertiary care hospital.Critically ill medical/surgical ICU patients.We calculated daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores by using electronic medical record-derived data. By using bedside nurse-recorded Glasgow Coma Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale measures, we calculated neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores using the original Glasgow Coma Scale-based approach and a novel Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based approach, converting the 10-point Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to a 4-point neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. We assessed construct validity of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment by analyzing correlations with established severity of illness constructs (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and predictive validity by using logistic regression to determine whether Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment predicts ICU, hospital, and 1-year mortality. We assessed discriminative performance with c-statistics.Among 513 patients (5,199 patient-days), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was strongly correlated with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II acute physiology score at enrollment (r = 0.583; 95% CI, 0.518-0.642) and daily Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (r = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.956-0.968). Mean Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores predicted ICU mortality (areas under the curve = 0.814)-as did mean Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.799)-as well as hospital and 1-year mortality. Admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, whether using Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale or Glasgow Coma Scale, were less accurate predictors of mortality; areas under the curves for ICU mortality for Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, for example, were 0.622 and 0.608, respectively.A modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score that uses bedside Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale when Glasgow Coma Scale data are not available is a valid means of assessing daily severity of illness in the ICU and may be valuable for risk-adjustment and benchmarking purposes.

Project description:ObjectivesDelirium is frequently missed in older emergency department (ED) patients. Brief (<2 minutes) delirium assessments have been validated for the ED, but some ED health care providers may consider them to be cumbersome. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is an observational scale that quantifies level of consciousness and takes less than 10 seconds to perform. The authors sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the RASS for delirium in older ED patients.MethodsThis was a preplanned analysis of a prospective observational study designed to validate brief delirium assessments for the ED. The study was conducted at an academic ED and enrolled patients who were 65 years or older. Patients who were non-English-speaking, deaf, blind, comatose or had end-stage dementia were excluded. A research assistant (RA) and a physician performed the RASS at the time of enrollment. Within 3 hours, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist performed his or her comprehensive reference standard assessment for delirium using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsOf 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the consult-liaison psychiatrist reference rater. When performed by the RA, a RASS other than 0 (RASS > 0 or < 0) was 84.0% sensitive (95% CI = 73.8% to 94.2%) and 87.6% specific (95% CI = 84.2% to 91.1%) for delirium. When performed by physician, a RASS other than 0 was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI = 71.4% to 92.6%) and 85.1% specific (95% CI = 81.4% to 88.8%) for delirium. Using a RASS > +1 or < -1 as the cutoff, the specificity improved to approximately 99% for both raters at the expense of sensitivity; the sensitivities were 22.0% (95% CI = 10.5% to 33.5%) and 16.0% (95% CI = 5.8% to 25.2%) in the RAs and physician raters, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 19.6 (95% CI = 6.5 to 59.1) when performed by the RA and 57.0 (95% CI = 7.3 to 445.9) when performed by the physician, indicating that a RASS > +1 or < -1 strongly increased the likelihood of delirium. The weighted kappa was 0.63, indicating moderate interobserver reliability.ConclusionsIn older ED patients, a RASS other than 0 has very good sensitivity and specificity for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. A RASS > +1 or < -1 is nearly diagnostic for delirium, given the very high positive likelihood ratio.

Project description:ObjectivesDelirium disproportionately affects patients with dementia and is associated with adverse outcomes. The diagnosis of delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), however, can be challenging due to several factors, including the absence of caregivers or the severity of preexisting cognitive impairment. Altered level of consciousness has been advocated as a possible useful indicator of delirium in this population. Here we evaluated the performance of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and the modified-RASS (m-RASS), an ultra-brief measure of the level of consciousness, in the diagnosis of DSD.DesignMulticenter prospective observational study. RASS and m-RASS results were analyzed together, labeled RASS/m-RASS.SettingAcute geriatric wards, in-hospital rehabilitation, emergency department.ParticipantsPatients 65 years and older with dementia.MeasurementsDelirium was diagnosed with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) or with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised (DRS-R-98), or with the 4 A's Test (4AT). Dementia was detected with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale, the Short Form-Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) or via the clinical records.ResultsOf the 645 patients included, 376 (58%) had delirium. According to the instrument used to evaluate delirium, the prevalence was 66% with the 4AT, 23% with the DSM, and 100% with the DRS-R-98. Overall a RASS/m-RASS score other than 0 was 70.5% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.9%-75.1%) and 84.8% (CI 80.5%-89.1%) specific for DSD. Using a RASS/m-RASS value greater than +1 or less than -1 as a cutoff, the sensitivity was 30.6% (CI 25.9%-35.2%) and the specificity was 95.5% (CI 93.1%-98.0%). The sensitivity and the specificity did not greatly vary according to the method of delirium diagnosis and the dementia ascertainment, although the specificity was slightly higher when the DSM and the IQCODE were used.ConclusionIn older patients admitted to different clinical settings, the RASS and m-RASS analyzed as a single group had moderate sensitivity and very high specificity for the detection of DSD. Level of consciousness is therefore a valuable clinical indicator that should form part of delirium screening strategies, although for higher sensitivity other methods of assessment should be used.