Critical Care Nurses Inadequately Assess SAPS II Scores of Very Ill Patients in Real Life.

Background. Reliable ICU severity scores have been achieved by various healthcare workers but nothing is known regarding the accuracy in real life of severity scores registered by untrained nurses. Methods. In this retrospective multicentre audit, three reviewers independently reassessed 120 SAPS II scores. Correlation and agreement of the sum-scores/variables among reviewers and between nurses and the reviewers' gold standard were assessed globally and for tertiles. Bland and Altman (gold standard-nurses) of sum scores and regression of the difference were determined. A logistic regression model identifying risk factors for erroneous assessments was calculated. Results. Correlation for sum scores among reviewers was almost perfect (mean ICC = 0.985). The mean (±SD) nurse-registered SAPS II sum score was 40.3 ± 20.2 versus 44.2 ± 24.9 of the gold standard (P < 0.002 for difference) with a lower ICC (0.81). Bland and Altman assay was +3.8 ± 27.0 with a significant regression between the difference and the gold standard, indicating overall an overestimation (underestimation) of lower (higher; >32 points) scores. The lowest agreement was found in high SAPS II tertiles for haemodynamics (k = 0.45-0.51). Conclusions. In real life, nurse-registered SAPS II scores of very ill patients are inaccurate. Accuracy of scores was not associated with nurses' characteristics.

High accuracy of the nine equivalents of nursing manpower use score assessed by critical care nurses.

PRINCIPLES: The nine equivalents of nursing manpower use score (NEMS) is frequently used to quantify, evaluate and allocate nursing workload at intensive care unit level. In Switzerland it has also become a key component in defining the degree of ICU hospital reimbursement. The accuracy of nurse registered NEMS scores in real life was assessed and error-prone variables were identified. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre audit three reviewers (1 nurse, 2 intensivists) independently reassessed a total of 529 NEMS scores. Correlation and agreement of the sum-scores and of the different variables among reviewers, as well as between nurses and the reviewers' reference value, were assessed (ICC, % agreement and kappa). Bland & Altman (reference value - nurses) of sum-scores and regression of the difference were determined and a logistic regression model identifying risk factors for erroneous assessments was calculated. RESULTS: Agreement for sum-scores among reviewers was almost perfect (mean ICC = 0.99 / significant correlation p <0.0001). The nurse registered NEMS score (mean ± SD) was 24.8 ± 8.6 points versus 24.0 ± 8.6 points (p <0.13 for difference) of the reference value, with a slightly lower ICC (0.83). The lowest agreement was found in intravenous medication (0.85). Bland & Altman was 0.84 ± 10, with a significant regression between the difference and the reference value, indicating overall an overestimation of lower scores (≤29 points) and underestimation of higher scores. Accuracy of scores or variables was not associated with nurses' characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In real life, nurse registered NEMS scores are highly accurate. Lower (≤29 points) NEMS sum-scores are overestimated and higher underestimated. Accuracy of scores or variables was not associated with nurses' characteristics.