Motor Activity Assessment Scale: a valid and reliable sedation scale for use with mechanically ventilated patients in an adult surgical intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE To establish the validity and reliability of a new sedation scale, the Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS). DESIGN Prospective, psychometric evaluation. SETTING Sixteen-bed surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of a 937-bed tertiary care, university-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS Twenty-five randomly selected, adult, mechanically ventilated, nonneurosurgical patients who were admitted to the SICU > or = 12 hrs after surgery and were not receiving neuromuscular blockers. INTERVENTION Four hundred assessments (eight per patient) were completed consecutively but independently, in pairs, at standardized times (both day and night) by two nurses who were preselected for each assessment from a pool of 32 pretrained SICU nurses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS To estimate validity, paired assessments (four/patient) compared the MAAS result with the subjective assessment using a 10-cm visual analog sedation scale, the percent change in blood pressure and heart rate from the previous 4-hr baselines, and the number of recent agitation-related sequelae. To estimate reliability, paired assessments (four/patient) measured correlation between assessments of the same type (e.g., MAAS-MAAS). Generalized estimating equations, which accounted for the four repeated measures in each patient, supported MAAS validity by finding a linear trend between MAAS and the visual analog scale (p < .001), blood pressure (p < .001), heart rate (p < .001), and agitation-related sequelae (p < .001) end points. The MAAS (kappa = 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.94]) was found to be more reliable than subjective assessment using the visual analog scale (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.32 [95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.55]). CONCLUSIONS The MAAS is a valid and reliable sedation scale for use with mechanically ventilated patients in the SICU. Further studies are warranted regarding the effect of MAAS implementation in our SICU on patient outcomes, such as quality of sedation and length of mechanical ventilation, as well as the use of the MAAS in other patient populations (e.g., medical).

[1]  R. L. Ebel,et al.  Estimation of the reliability of ratings , 1951 .

[2]  M. Ramsay,et al.  Controlled Sedation with Alphaxalone-Alphadolone , 1974, British medical journal.

[3]  E. Huskisson.  Measurement of pain. , 1974, Lancet.

[4]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[5]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[6]  D. Chernik,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the Observer's: Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale Study with Intravenous Midazolam , 1990, Journal of clinical psychopharmacology.

[7]  G. Carrasco,et al.  Propofol vs midazolam in short-, medium-, and long-term sedation of critically ill patients. A cost-benefit analysis. , 1993, Chest.

[8]  R. Polomano,et al.  Beyond the Ramsay scale: need for a validated measure of sedating drug efficacy in the intensive care unit. , 1994, Critical care medicine.

[9]  J. Dasta,et al.  Patterns of prescribing and administering drugs for agitation and pain in patients in a surgical intensive care unit , 1994, Critical care medicine.

[10]  J. Blumer,et al.  Optimal sedation of mechanically ventilated pediatric critical care patients , 1994, Critical care medicine.

[11]  T J Gallagher,et al.  Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation in intensive care unit patients. , 1995, Critical care medicine.

[12]  J. Harper.  Need for a validated measure of sedating drug efficacy. , 1995, Critical care medicine.

[13]  J. Kress,et al.  Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam. , 1996, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.