| |
Abstract |
This study is an extension of a previous study by Riker, Picard and Fraser (1999) to determine whether doctors and nurses rate patients similarly using the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) in a natural Intensive Care Units (ICU) setting. The author notes that it is essential to establish whether these different professionals provide consistent scores and have a mutual understanding of the SAS and its constituent levels. This will help ensure that clinical decisions relating to sedation-needs can be made appropriately and consistently. This quasi-experimental reliability study was set in a 12-bed tertiary general ICU in New Zealand. The SAS had recently been introduced into this unit and a convenience sample of 42 nursing and medical staff performed paired ratings on 69 randomly selected adult ICU patients over an eight week time frame. The mean patient age was 58 years, and 79% of patients were on continuous infusions of Propofol. Intubated patients made up 91% of the sample. 74% of patients were given the same SAS score by the doctor-nurse pair. The weighted kappa score for inter-rater agreement was 0.82 indicating very good agreement. Of the 26% of scores where there was a difference, the two readings were only one score apart. Most of the difference occurred around SAS scores of 1-2 and 3-4. Further analysis found no staff or patient variables to be statistically significant in impacting on the ratings. The SAS was found to be a reliable sedation-scoring tool in a general ICU when used by nurses and doctors of varying experience. |
|
