These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validity and Reliability of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients: A Multicenter Study.
    Author: Tapia R, López-Herce J, Arias Á, Del Castillo J, Mencía S.
    Journal: Front Pediatr; 2021; 9():795487. PubMed ID: 35047463.
    Abstract:
    Background: There is limited data about the psychometric properties of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) in children. This study aims to analyze the validity and reliability of the RASS in assessing sedation and agitation in critically ill children. Methods: A multicenter prospective study in children admitted to pediatric intensive care, aged between 1 month and 18 years. Twenty-eight observers from 14 PICUs (pediatric intensive care units) participated. Every observation was assessed by 4 observers: 2 nurses and 2 pediatric intensivists. We analyzed RASS inter-rater reliability, construct validity by comparing RASS to the COMFORT behavior (COMFORT-B) scale and the numeric rating scale (NRS), and by its ability to distinguish between levels of sedation, and responsiveness to changes in sedative dose levels. Results: 139 episodes in 55 patients were analyzed, with a median age 3.6 years (interquartile range 0.7-7.8). Inter-rater reliability was excellent, weighted kappa (κw) 0.946 (95% CI, 0.93-0.96; p < 0.001). RASS correlation with COMFORT-B scale, rho = 0.935 (p < 0.001) and NRS, rho = 0.958 (p < 0.001) was excellent. The RASS scores were significantly different (p < 0.001) for the 3 sedation categories (over-sedation, optimum and under-sedation) of the COMFORT-B scale, with a good agreement between both scales, κw 0.827 (95% CI, 0.789-0.865; p < 0.001), κ 0.762 (95% CI, 0.713-0.811, p < 0.001). A significant change in RASS scores (p < 0.001) was recorded with the variance of sedative doses. Conclusions: The RASS showed good measurement properties in PICU, in terms of inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. These properties, including its ability to categorize the patients into deep sedation, moderate-light sedation, and agitation, makes the RASS a useful instrument for monitoring sedation in PICU.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]