ISSN (print) 1726-9806     ISSN (online) 1818-474X
No. 3 (2024), ORGANIZATION AND LEGAL ISSUES
No. 3 (2024)
ORGANIZATION AND LEGAL ISSUES

Demand for rating and prognostic scales among anesthesiologists and critical care physicians of Russian Federation: a survey

Published 31.07.2024
E.O. Kotelnikova
Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5650-4192
A.S. Tuhtamanova
Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4827-1763
K.M. Isalova
Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1955-8778
A.А. Gofman
Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8635-0786
E.A. Sazhaev
Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4261-4197
Mаxim A. Babaev
Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4288-3791
2024-3
PDF_2024-3_61-84 (Russian)
HTML_2024-3_61-84_S (Russian)

Keywords

survey
questionnaire
critical care
scale
anesthesiology
resuscitation

How to Cite

1.
Kotelnikova E.O., Tuhtamanova A.S., Isalova K.M., Gofman A.А., Sazhaev E.A., Babaev M.A. Demand for rating and prognostic scales among anesthesiologists and critical care physicians of Russian Federation: a survey. Annals of Critical Care. 2024;(3):61-84. doi:10.21320/1818-474X-2024-3-61-84
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Statistic

Abstract Views: 1387
PDF_2024-3_61-84 (Russian) Downloads: 773
HTML_2024-3_61-84_S (Russian) Downloads: 104
Statistic from 01.07.2024

Language

English Русский

Most reader

Social Networks

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.

PDF_2024-3_61-84 (Russian)
HTML_2024-3_61-84_S (Russian)

Full-text of the article is available for this locale: Russian.

References

  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
  6. Пчелинцева Ф.А., Петрова М.В., Шмыр И.С. и др. Объективные методы оценки тяжести состояния пациентов в отделении реанимации онкохирургического профиля. Исследования и практика в медицине. 2020; 7(2): 116–28. DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2020-7-2-11 [Pchelintseva F.A., Petrova M.V., Shmyr I.S., et al. Objective methods for assessing the severity of patients condition in a surgical intensive care unit. Research and Practical Medicine Journal (Issled. prakt. med.). 2020; 7(2): 116–28. DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2020-7-2-11 (In Russ)]
  7. Apgar V. A Proposal for a New Method of Evaluation of the Newborn Infant. Originally published in July 1953, volume 32, pages 250–259. Anesth Analg. 2015; 120(5): 1056–9. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31829bdc5c
  8. Александрович Ю.С., Гордеев В.И. Оценочные и прогностические шкалы в медицине критических состояний. СПб.: Сотис, 2007. 140 с. [Aleksandrovich Yu.S., Gordeev V.I. Otsenochnye i prognosticheskie shkaly v meditsine kriticheskikh sostoyaniy. [Assessment and prognostic scales in critical medicine]. SPb.: Sotis, 2007. 140 p. (In Russ)]
  9. Fujimori K., Tarasawa K., Fushimi K. Effectiveness of polymyxin B hemoperfusion for sepsis depends on the baseline SOFA score: a nationwide observational study. Ann Intensive Care. 2021; 11(1): 141. DOI: 10.1186/s13613-021-00928-z
  10. Hikmet N., Chen S.K. An investigation into low mail survey response rates of information technology users in health care organizations. Int J Med Inf. 2003; 72(1): 29–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2003.09.002
  11. Zanolin M.E., Visentin M., Trentin L., et al. Questionnaire to Evaluate the Knowledge and Attitudes of Health Care Providers on Pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007; 33(6): 727–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.09.032
  12. Pettilä V., Pettilä M., Sarna S., et al. Comparison of multiple organ dysfunction scores in the prediction of hospital mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2002; 30: 1705–11. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200208000-00005.
  13. Salluh J.I., Soares M. ICU severity of illness scores: APACHE, SAPS and MPM. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014; 20(5): 557–65. DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000135
  14. Strand K., Flaatten H. Severity scoring in the ICU: a review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008; 52(4): 467–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01586.x
  15. Jeong Y. J., Kang J. Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure post-intensive care syndrome. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2019; 55: 1027–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2019.102756
  16. Pysyk C.L., Davies J.M., Neil Armstrong J. Application of a modified surgical safety checklist: user beware! Can J Anaesth. 2013; 60(6): 513–8. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-013-9923-9
  17. Shaw A., Stafford-Smith M., Swaminathan M. The Role of Biomarkers in Cardiac Surgery-associated Acute Kidney Injury. Intensive Care Medicine. Springer New York. 2009: 612–9. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-92278-2_57
  18. McMillan T., Wilson L., Ponsford J., et al. The Glasgow Outcome Scale — 40 years of application and refinement. Nat Rev Neurol. 2016; 12(8): 477–85. DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2016.89
  19. Лихванцев В.В. Неспецифический делирий в отделении интенсивной терапии и реанимации. Анестезиол. и реаниматол. 2015; 60(2): 55–9. [Likhvantsev V.V. Nonspecific delirium in the intensive care unit. Anesteziol. i Reanimatol. 2015; 60(2): 55–9 (In Russ)]
  20. Kruizenga H.M., Seidell J.C., Henrica C.W. de Vet, et al. Development and validation of a hospital screening tool for malnutrition: the short nutritional assessment questionnaire (SNAQ). Clin Nutr Edinb Scotl. 2005; 24(1): 75–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2004.07.015
  21. Berger M., Ortego A. Calculated Decisions: Injury Severity Score (ISS). Pediatr Emerg Med Pract. 2019; 16(5): 1–2.
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 Annals of Critical Care