PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine validity and reliability of the Moline-Roberts Pharmacologic Sedation Scale. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary expert panel was used to establish content validity. Reliability was determined by a prospective, randomized, psychometric evaluation of sedation assignment made by 2 nurse research assistants. SETTING: The study was conducted in a 260-bed nonprofit community hospital. SAMPLE: Eighty-six subjects were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: receiving opioids, benzodiazepines, or anesthetic agents; ability to understand English; and normal or near-normal hearing. METHODS: Two bachelor of science in nursing-prepared nurses observed each subject and independently documented sedation levels at 3 or 4 points in time for each patient. FINDINGS: Content validity resulted in 100% agreement that the sedation scale reflected the concept of pharmacologic sedation. Internal reliability as measured by Cronbach α was .983 to .996. For each of the scale's components, interrater reliability using Cohen κ ranged from 76.4% to 97.4%. The Cohen κ P value for all components at all points in time was statistically significant at P < .001. CONCLUSION: The Moline-Roberts Pharmacologic Sedation Scale demonstrated content validity and strong reliability. IMPLICATIONS: The sedation scale has clinical value in providing a standardized assessment and quantitative assignment of pharmacologically induced sedation that is reflective of the continuum of sedation. Information obtained regarding the patient's sedation should be documented, trended, and incorporated into the decision-making process regarding additional administration of agents that produce or potentiate sedation. Further research is needed in populations not included in this study.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine validity and reliability of the Moline-Roberts Pharmacologic Sedation Scale. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary expert panel was used to establish content validity. Reliability was determined by a prospective, randomized, psychometric evaluation of sedation assignment made by 2 nurse research assistants. SETTING: The study was conducted in a 260-bed nonprofit community hospital. SAMPLE: Eighty-six subjects were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: receiving opioids, benzodiazepines, or anesthetic agents; ability to understand English; and normal or near-normal hearing. METHODS: Two bachelor of science in nursing-prepared nurses observed each subject and independently documented sedation levels at 3 or 4 points in time for each patient. FINDINGS: Content validity resulted in 100% agreement that the sedation scale reflected the concept of pharmacologic sedation. Internal reliability as measured by Cronbach α was .983 to .996. For each of the scale's components, interrater reliability using Cohen κ ranged from 76.4% to 97.4%. The Cohen κ P value for all components at all points in time was statistically significant at P < .001. CONCLUSION: The Moline-Roberts Pharmacologic Sedation Scale demonstrated content validity and strong reliability. IMPLICATIONS: The sedation scale has clinical value in providing a standardized assessment and quantitative assignment of pharmacologically induced sedation that is reflective of the continuum of sedation. Information obtained regarding the patient's sedation should be documented, trended, and incorporated into the decision-making process regarding additional administration of agents that produce or potentiate sedation. Further research is needed in populations not included in this study.
Authors: Eugene R Viscusi; Franck Skobieranda; David G Soergel; Emily Cook; David A Burt; Neil Singla Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Sergio D Bergese; Marek Brzezinski; Gregory B Hammer; Timothy L Beard; Peter H Pan; Sharon E Mace; Richard D Berkowitz; Kristina Cochrane; Linda Wase; Harold S Minkowitz; Ashraf S Habib Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Neil K Singla; Franck Skobieranda; David G Soergel; Monica Salamea; David A Burt; Mark A Demitrack; Eugene R Viscusi Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 3.183