The Comparison of Ramsay and Richmond Scales for Intensive Care Unit Sedation, the Consistency Between Doctors and Nurses


Creative Commons License

HEPKARŞI A. , BOR C. , DEMİRAĞ K. , ÇANKAYALI İ. , UYAR M.

JOURNAL OF THE TURKISH SOCIETY OF INTENSIVE CARE-TURK YOGUN BAKM DERNEGI DERGISI, vol.13, no.3, pp.112-116, 2015 (Journal Indexed in ESCI) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 13 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2015
  • Doi Number: 10.4274/tybdd.20592
  • Title of Journal : JOURNAL OF THE TURKISH SOCIETY OF INTENSIVE CARE-TURK YOGUN BAKM DERNEGI DERGISI
  • Page Numbers: pp.112-116

Abstract

Objective: Daily interruption and monitoring of sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, especially in patients on mechanical ventilation, with the help of sedation scales is recommended for titration of sedative drugs. For this purpose, scales such as Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) and the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) are commonly used. Although these scales definitively describe sedation levels, perceptions and scores can differ among practitioners. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate these subjective assessments and the consistency between nurses, residents and specialists, and to evaluate the degree of ease of these scales. Material and Method: After ethic committee approval, a single-center prospective observational study was planned; 128 adult patients, who were conscious, and had no motor and sensory defects, were included in the study. Each patient was evaluated with the RASS and RSS scales by nurses, residents and specialists simultaneously and the scores and ease of scale were recorded in such a way which did not allow the participants to see each other. Data was analyzed by the medical informatics and statistics department of the university and the Weighted Kappa values between practitioners were measured. Results: A total of 482 observations were made from the 128 patients included in the study. Practitioners evaluated both sedation scales simultaneously. Upon comparison of the practitioners' scale values, the consistency between the matching observation numbers showed a Weighted Kappa value between 0.71-0.77, which was found to be statistically significant and the consistency between participants was classified as "good". The degree of ease of application for both scales was found to be "very easy". Conclusion: This study reveals a correlation between RASS and RSS scores between practitioners with different educational levels. The implementation of both scales was found "very easy", and both scales were found suitable for bedside sedation monitoring in the ICU. Both RASS and RSS scores were found effective and safe to use for sedation assessment of the patient in the ICU, independent of the practitioner.