INTRODUCTION: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely applied in the emergency setting; it is used to guide trauma triage and for the application of essential interventions such as endotracheal intubation. However, inter-rater reliability of GCS scoring has been shown to be low for inexperienced users, especially for the motor component. Concerns regarding the accuracy and validity of GCS scoring between various types of emergency care providers have been expressed. Hypothesis/Problem The objective of this study was to determine the degree of accuracy of GCS scoring between various emergency care providers within a modern Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of the accuracy of GCS scoring using a convenience sample of various types of emergency medical providers using standardized video vignettes. Ten video vignettes using adults were prepared and scored by two board-certified neurologists. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (Cohen's κ = 1). Subjects viewed the video and then scored each scenario. The scoring of subjects was compared to expert scoring of the two board-certified neurologists. RESULTS: A total of 217 emergency providers watched 10 video vignettes and provided 2,084 observations of GCS scoring. Overall total GCS scoring accuracy was 33.1% (95% CI, 30.2-36.0). The highest accuracy was observed on the verbal component of the GCS (69.2%; 95% CI, 67.8-70.4). The eye-opening component was the second most accurate (61.2%; 95% CI, 59.5-62.9). The least accurate component was the motor component (59.8%; 95% CI, 58.1-61.5). A small number of subjects (9.2%) assigned GCS scores that do not exist in the GCS scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: Glasgow Coma Scale scoring should not be considered accurate. A more simplified scoring system should be developed and validated.
INTRODUCTION: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely applied in the emergency setting; it is used to guide trauma triage and for the application of essential interventions such as endotracheal intubation. However, inter-rater reliability of GCS scoring has been shown to be low for inexperienced users, especially for the motor component. Concerns regarding the accuracy and validity of GCS scoring between various types of emergency care providers have been expressed. Hypothesis/Problem The objective of this study was to determine the degree of accuracy of GCS scoring between various emergency care providers within a modern Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of the accuracy of GCS scoring using a convenience sample of various types of emergency medical providers using standardized video vignettes. Ten video vignettes using adults were prepared and scored by two board-certified neurologists. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (Cohen's κ = 1). Subjects viewed the video and then scored each scenario. The scoring of subjects was compared to expert scoring of the two board-certified neurologists. RESULTS: A total of 217 emergency providers watched 10 video vignettes and provided 2,084 observations of GCS scoring. Overall total GCS scoring accuracy was 33.1% (95% CI, 30.2-36.0). The highest accuracy was observed on the verbal component of the GCS (69.2%; 95% CI, 67.8-70.4). The eye-opening component was the second most accurate (61.2%; 95% CI, 59.5-62.9). The least accurate component was the motor component (59.8%; 95% CI, 58.1-61.5). A small number of subjects (9.2%) assigned GCS scores that do not exist in the GCS scoring system. CONCLUSIONS:Glasgow Coma Scale scoring should not be considered accurate. A more simplified scoring system should be developed and validated.
Entities:
Keywords:
EMS Emergency Medical Services; GCS Glasgow Coma Scale; SMS Simplified Motor Scale; SVS Simplified Verbal Scale; TBI traumatic brain injury; trauma care
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Zilu Zhang; Sameer S Kadri; David J Murphy; Greg S Martin; Elizabeth Overton; Christopher W Seymour; Derek C Angus; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David Fram; Richard Schaaf; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Heather E Hsu; Francisca Abanyie; Michael S D Agus; Fran Balamuth; Patrick W Brady; Richard J Brilli; Joseph A Carcillo; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; Anthony E Fiore; Jeffrey S Gerber; Runa H Gokhale; Benny L Joyner; Niranjan Kissoon; Michael Klompas; Grace M Lee; Charles G Macias; Karen M Puopolo; Carmen D Sulton; Scott L Weiss; Chanu Rhee Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Daniel W Spaite; Bentley J Bobrow; Samuel M Keim; Bruce Barnhart; Vatsal Chikani; Joshua B Gaither; Duane Sherrill; Kurt R Denninghoff; Terry Mullins; P David Adelson; Amber D Rice; Chad Viscusi; Chengcheng Hu Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David J Murphy; Christopher W Seymour; Theodore J Iwashyna; Sameer S Kadri; Derek C Angus; Robert L Danner; Anthony E Fiore; John A Jernigan; Greg S Martin; Edward Septimus; David K Warren; Anita Karcz; Christina Chan; John T Menchaca; Rui Wang; Susan Gruber; Michael Klompas Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joshua B Gaither; Daniel W Spaite; Bentley J Bobrow; Samuel M Keim; Bruce J Barnhart; Vatsal Chikani; Duane Sherrill; Kurt R Denninghoff; Terry Mullins; P David Adelson; Amber D Rice; Chad Viscusi; Chengcheng Hu Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Taylor N Anderson; Jun Hwang; Myrna Munar; Linda Papa; Holly E Hinson; Allison Vaughan; Susan E Rowell Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.697