Measuring quality of sedation in adult mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: the Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale

被引:73
作者
de Lemos, J
Tweeddale, M
Chittock, D
机构
[1] Vancouver Gen Hosp, Clin Serv Unit, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, Fac Pharmaceut Sci, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Program Crit Care Med, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
关键词
sedation scale; reliability; validity; responsiveness; critically ill; sedation;
D O I
10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00208-0
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
There are no reliable, valid, and responsive scales to measure the quality of sedation in adult critically ill patients. Our objective was to develop a summated rating scale with these properties and to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). We developed and tested the scale in an 18-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (12-bed acute and 6-bed subacute unit). Following identification of relevant domains and item derivation, 116 observations were made on 38 patients, psychometric properties and interrater reliability were assessed to allow item reduction. The final scale consisted of two five-item subscales quantifying calmness and interaction along a continuum from 5 to 30 points. Interrater reliability was 0.89 and 0.90: internal consistency was 0.95 for both subscales. To test construct validity, MCID, and responsiveness 302 observations were made on 54 patients. Construct validity: calmness score vs. need for further intervention to make the patient calm (R = -0.82, P < 0.001); interaction score discriminated between acute vs. subacute units, mean scores 15.28 +/- 8.26 vs. 23.54 +/- 7.42, mean difference 8.27 (95% CI - 10.32 to -6.22); MCID - 2.2 and 2.5 for the calmness and interaction subscales; Guyatt's responsiveness statistics - 1.4 and 2.3. The Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale (VICS) is reliable, valid, and responsive. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:908 / 919
页数:12
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   COMPARISON OF PROPOFOL AND MIDAZOLAM FOR SEDATION IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS [J].
AITKENHEAD, AR ;
WILLATTS, SM ;
PARK, GR ;
COLLINS, CH ;
LEDINGHAM, IM ;
PEPPERMAN, ML ;
COATES, PD ;
BODENHAM, AR ;
SMITH, MB ;
WALLACE, PGM .
LANCET, 1989, 2 (8665) :704-709
[2]   ASSESSING DISTRESS IN PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE-CARE ENVIRONMENTS - THE COMFORT SCALE [J].
AMBUEL, B ;
HAMLETT, KW ;
MARX, CM ;
BLUMER, JL .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC PSYCHOLOGY, 1992, 17 (01) :95-109
[3]  
[Anonymous], MEASURING HLTH GUIDE
[4]   MEASUREMENT AND RELIABILITY - STATISTICAL THINKING CONSIDERATIONS [J].
BARTKO, JJ .
SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN, 1991, 17 (03) :483-489
[5]  
CARRASCO G, 1992, INTENS CARE MED, V18, pP158
[6]  
CHERNIK DA, 1990, J CLIN PSYCHOPHARM, V10, P244
[7]  
CHERNIK DA, 1992, J CLIN PSYCHOPHARM, V12, P43
[8]   ASSESSMENT OF ALFENTANIL BY INTRAVENOUS-INFUSION AS LONG-TERM SEDATION IN INTENSIVE-CARE [J].
COHEN, AT ;
KELLY, DR .
ANAESTHESIA, 1987, 42 (05) :545-548
[9]   GASTROINTESTINAL INFECTIONS - EDITORIAL OVERVIEW [J].
COOK, GC .
CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 1989, 2 (01) :65-66
[10]  
Cronbach LJ, 1951, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V16, P297