Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nowadays there are a lot of different rating and prognostic scales that allow to objectify the patient’s condition. OBJECTIVE: To identify the awareness of the staff of intensive care units in different medical organizations of the Russian Federation regarding assessment tools, to analyze the preferences of using and to determine the quality of knowledges about the validity of the assessment tools used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors analyzed 693 Russian-language sources published between 2018–2022 years from the following databases: Elsevier, Google Scholar, PubMed, eLIBRARY, and official site of Federation of Anesthesiologists and Reanimatologists of Russia. During the analysis the most commonly used scoring systems were extracted and included in the questionnaire to anesthesiologists-reanimatologists working in Moscow hospitals. RESULTS: According to the answers received from 120 respondents, the most frequently used scales were (American Society of Anaesthesiologists Scale (ASA) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) (95.83 and 93.33 %, respectively). Also, the authors revealed the statistically significant differences in clinical application of the scales between respondents. Specialists from Federal hospitals commonly used Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage kidney disease criteria for assessment of acute kidney failure (73.47 %). However, representatives from City hospitals used the Glasgow Outcome Scale more often in their practice (60.94 %). CONCLUSIONS: To sum it up, not all of existed scoring systems are implemented into the clinical practice of intensive care unit (ICU) specialists. The most commonly used scales revealed in the current study were anesthesiological ones. Concerning another types of scales, their usage depended on specifics of ICU department, ICU specialists’ work experience. That is why the following data in this study demonstrates the non-awareness of the anesthesiologists and reanimatologists for validation of scoring systems in Russia.
Publisher
Practical Medicine Publishing House
Reference21 articles.
1. Потанина O.K., Дорфман А.Г., Огурцова Е.В. и др. Сравнение эффективности прогностических шкал оценки тяжести состояния реанимационных больных хирургического профиля. Врач и информационные технологии. 2011; 6: 50–61. [Potanina O.K., Dorfman A.G., Ogurtsova E.V., et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of prognostic scales for assessing the severity of resuscitation patients with surgical profile. Doctor and information technologies. 2011; 6: 50–61 (In Russ)]
2. Heavner M.S., Gorman E.F., Linn D.D., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the correlation between bispectral index (BIS) and clinical sedation scales: toward defining the role of BIS in critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2022; 42(8): 667–76. DOI: 10.1002/phar.2712
3. Papageorgiou D., Kosenai K., Gika E., et al. Quantification of Frailty Syndrome in ICU Patients with Clinical Frailty Scale. Folia Med. (Plovdiv). 2020; 62(4): 655–61. DOI: 10.3897/folmed.62.e50433
4. Higgins J., Casey S., Taylor E., et al. Comparing the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin Pressure Injury Risk Scales in Trauma-Surgery ICU Patients. Crit Care Nurse. 2020; 40(6): 52–61. DOI: 10.4037/ccn2020874
5. Yun R., Hess O., Kennedy K., et al. Assessing pediatric perioperative affect: A concise review of research and clinically relevant scales. Paediatr Anaesth. 2023; 33(3): 243–9. DOI: 10.1111/pan.14568