Suppr超能文献

成人重症患者镇静-躁动量表的前瞻性评估。

Prospective evaluation of the Sedation-Agitation Scale for adult critically ill patients.

作者信息

Riker R R, Picard J T, Fraser G L

机构信息

Department of Critical Care, Maine Medical Center, Portland 04102, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 1999 Jul;27(7):1325-9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199907000-00022.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Subjective scales to assess agitation and sedation in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients have rarely been tested for validity or reliability. We revised and prospectively tested the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Ramsay scale and the Harris scale to test construct validity.

DESIGN

A convenience sample of ICU patients was simultaneously and independently examined by pairs of trained evaluators by using the revised SAS, Ramsay, and Harris Scales.

SETTING

Multidisciplinary 34-bed ICU in a nonuniversity, academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Forty-five ICU patients (surgical and medical) were examined a total of 69 times by evaluator pairs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The mean patient age was 63.2 yrs, 36% were female, and 71% were intubated. When classified by using SAS, 45% were anxious or agitated (SAS 5 to 7), 26% were calm (SAS 4), and 29% were sedated (SAS 1 to 3). Interrater correlation was high for SAS (r2 = .83; p < .001) and the weighted kappa score for interrater agreement was 0.92 (p < .001). Of 41 assessments scored as Ramsay 1, 49% scored SAS 6, 41% were SAS 5, 5% were SAS 4, and 2% each were SAS 3 or 7. SAS was highly correlated with the Ramsay (r2 = .83; p < .001) and Harris (r2 = .86; p < .001) scales.

CONCLUSIONS

SAS is both reliable (high interrater agreement) and valid (high correlation with the Harris and Ramsay scales) in assessing agitation and sedation in adult ICU patients. SAS provides additional information by stratifying agitation into three categories (compared with one for the Ramsay scale) without sacrificing validity or reliability.

摘要

目的

用于评估成人重症监护病房(ICU)患者躁动和镇静情况的主观量表很少经过效度或信度测试。我们对镇静 - 躁动量表(SAS)进行了修订并前瞻性地测试了其评分者间信度,并将其与拉姆齐量表和哈里斯量表进行比较以测试结构效度。

设计

通过使用修订后的SAS、拉姆齐量表和哈里斯量表,由经过培训的评估者对ICU患者的便利样本进行同步且独立的检查。

地点

一所非大学的学术医疗中心的拥有34张床位的多学科ICU。

患者

45例ICU患者(外科和内科)被评估者对总共检查了69次。

测量与主要结果

患者平均年龄为63.2岁,36%为女性,71%接受了气管插管。使用SAS进行分类时,45%为焦虑或躁动(SAS 5至7),26%为平静(SAS 4),29%为镇静(SAS 1至3)。SAS的评分者间相关性很高(r2 = 0.83;p < 0.001),评分者间一致性的加权kappa评分为0.92(p < 0.001)。在41次被评为拉姆齐1级的评估中,49%评分为SAS 6,41%为SAS 5,5%为SAS 4,2%分别为SAS 3或7。SAS与拉姆齐量表(r2 = 0.83;p < 0.001)和哈里斯量表(r2 = 0.86;p < 0.001)高度相关。

结论

SAS在评估成人ICU患者的躁动和镇静情况方面既可靠(评分者间一致性高)又有效(与哈里斯量表和拉姆齐量表高度相关)。SAS通过将躁动分为三类(与拉姆齐量表的一类相比)提供了额外信息,同时不牺牲效度或信度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验