Validity and Reliability of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients: A Multicenter Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tapia R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762108 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4748963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), which assesses level of sedation and agitation, is a simple observational instrument which was developed and validated for the intensive care setting. Although used and recommended in palliative care settings, further validation is required in this patient population. The aim of this study was to explore the validity and feasibility of a version of the RASS modified for palliative care populations (RASS-PAL). METHODS: A prospective study, using a mixed methods approach, was conducted. Thirteen health care professionals (physicians and nurses) working in an acute palliative care unit assessed ten consecutive patients with an agitated delirium or receiving palliative sedation. Patients were assessed at five designated time points using the RASS-PAL. Health care professionals completed a short survey and data from semi-structured interviews was analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient range of the RASS-PAL was 0.84 to 0.98 for the five time points. Professionals agreed that the tool was useful for assessing sedation and was easy to use. Its role in monitoring delirium however was deemed problematic. Professionals felt that it may assist interprofessional communication. The need for formal education on why and how to use the instrument was highlighted. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary validity evidence for the use of the RASS-PAL by physicians and nurses working in a palliative care unit, specifically for assessing sedation and agitation levels in the management of palliative sedation. Further validity evidence should be sought, particularly in the context of assessing delirium.
| S-EPMC3997822 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3610594 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Delirium 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. DESIGN:Multicenter prospective observational study. RASS and m-RASS results were analyzed together, labeled RASS/m-RASS. SETTING:Acute geriatric wards, in-hospital rehabilitation, emergency department. PARTICIPANTS:Patients 65 years and older with dementia. MEASUREMENTS:Delirium 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. RESULTS:Of 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. CONCLUSION:In 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.
| S-EPMC5257263 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4516221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundManaging 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.AimsThis 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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsBased 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.
| S-EPMC7932456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.MethodsWe sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ?24?h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24?h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.ResultsWe enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p?=?0.003 and?<?0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.ConclusionsThe actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.
| S-EPMC7905610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThis narrative review illustrates literature over the last 5 years relating to sedation delivery to mechanically ventilated adult patients in intensive care units.Recent findingsThere has been an increase in dexmedetomidine-related publications but although systematic reviews suggest dexmedetomidine reduces delirium, agitation, and length of stay, clinical trials have not supported these findings. It is likely to be useful for the managing patients with persisting agitation. Guidelines continue to recommend lightly sedating patients but considerable variation remains in clinical practice and in research trials. Protocols with no sedative infusions and morphine boluses as needed are feasible and safe, while educational interventions can decrease sedation-related adverse events.SummaryResearch trials have mainly focused on individual drugs rather than practice. Given evidence is slow to translate into practice; work is needed to understand and respond to the concerns of clinicians regarding deep sedation and agitation.
| S-EPMC8065316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The management of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is beneficial for patients and makes it widely applied in clinical practice. Previous studies showed that the clinical practice of PAD in ICU was improving; yet relatively little information is available in China. This study aimed to investigate the practice of PAD in ICUs in China.A multicenter, nationwide survey was conducted using a clinician-directed questionnaire from September 19 to December 18, 2016. The questionnaire focused on the assessment and management of PAD by the clinicians in ICUs. The practice of PAD was compared among the four regions of China (North, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest). The data were expressed as percentage and frequency. The Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and line-row Chi-square test were used.Of the 1011 valid questionnaire forms, the response rate was 80.37%. The clinicians came from 704 hospitals across 158 cities of China. The rate of PAD assessment was 75.77%, 90.21%, and 66.77%, respectively. The rates of PAD scores were 45.8%, 68.94%, and 34.03%, respectively. The visual analog scale, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, and confusion assessment method for the ICU were the first choices of scales for PAD assessment. Fentanyl, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine were the first choices of agents for analgesic, sedation, and delirium treatment. While choosing analgesics and sedatives, the clinicians put the pharmacological characteristics of drugs in the first place (66.07% and 76.36%). Daily interruption for sedation was carried out by 67.26% clinicians. Most of the clinicians (87.24%) used analgesics while using sedatives. Of the 738 (73%) clinicians titrating the sedatives on the basis of the proposed target sedation level, 268 (26.61%) clinicians just depended on their clinical experience. Totally, 519 (51.34%) clinicians never used other nondrug strategies for PAD. The working time of clinicians was an important factor in the management of analgesia and sedation rather than their titles and educational background. The ratios of pain score and sedation score in the Southwest China were the highest and the North China were the lowest. The ratios of delirium assessment and score were the same in the four regions of China. Moreover, the first choices of scales for PAD in the four regions were the same. However, the top three choices of agents in PAD treatment in the four regions were not the same.The practice of PAD in China follows the international guidelines; however, the pain assessment should be improved. The PAD practice is a little different across the four regions of China; however, the trend is consistent.The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (No. ChiCTR-OOC-16009014, www.chictr. org.cn/index.aspx.).
| S-EPMC5443024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDevelopment and validation of the Pediatric Sedation State Scale (PSSS) is intended to specifically meet the needs of pediatric procedural sedation providers to measure effectiveness and quality of care.MethodsThe PSSS content was developed through Delphi methods utilizing leading pediatric sedation experts and published guidelines on procedural sedation in children. Video clips were created and presented to study participants, who graded the state of patients during procedures by using the PSSS to evaluate inter- and intrarater reliability by determining the intraclass correlation coefficient. We also compared the PSSS to the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-revised during 4 clinically relevant phases of a laceration repair procedure.ResultsSix sedation states were defined for the PSSS. Each state was assigned a numerical value with higher numbers for increasing activity states. We included behaviors associated with adequate and inadequate sedation and adverse events associated with excessive sedation. Analysis of interrater and intrarater reliability revealed an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.994 (95% confidence interval: 0.986-0.998) and 0.986 (95% confidence interval: 0.970-0.995), respectively. Criterion validity was confirmed with respect to the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-revised (Spearman r = 0.96). Construct validity was indicated by significant differences in PSSS scores (P < .001) between 4 phases of a procedure, each having a different degree of painful or distressing stimuli.ConclusionsThe PSSS is a 6-point scale that is a valid measure of the effectiveness and quality of procedural sedation in children within the limits of the testing method used in this study.
| S-EPMC5404726 | biostudies-literature