Care Erosion in Sedation Assessment: A Prospective Comparison of Usual Care Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale Assessment With Protocolized Assessment for Medical Intensive Care Unit Patients
Journal of Nursing Management
Objectives: To determine concordance between an explicit protocolized assessment of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and an assessment performed during usual care nursing practice. Research Design: In an urban, safety-net hospital, intensive care nurses previously trained in sedation assessment recorded a bedside Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale assessment, while study investigators used an explicit script to perform the assessment at a similar time point. Kappa indices determined concordance of the assessments. Bivariate analyses explored factors associated with discordance and unresponsiveness. Results: Twenty-one subjects with 38 observations were analysed. Bedside nursing assessment was poorly concordant with protocolized assessment (ƙ = 0.21) with the former reporting significantly lighter sedation (median −2 vs. −5, p =.01). Bedside assessment was significantly less likely than protocolized assessment to categorize subjects as unresponsive (29 vs. 50%, p =.02). Conclusion: Methods used in usual clinical practice to assess adequacy of sedation frequently led to oversedation. We propose that care erosion, the deterioration of skills over time, may help explain this finding. Implications for Nursing Management: Results suggest sedation assessment may be particularly vulnerable to care erosion. Nurse managers should monitor for signs of care erosion and consider utilization of explicit scripts during sedation assessment and/or frequent education to ensure sedation assessment accuracy.
Anderson, Christopher Charles; Johnson, Jessica L.; deBoisblanc, Bennett P.; and Jolley, Sarah E., "Care Erosion in Sedation Assessment: A Prospective Comparison of Usual Care Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale Assessment With Protocolized Assessment for Medical Intensive Care Unit Patients" (2020). School of Medicine Faculty Publications. 122.