Interrater Reliability of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia, Berg Balance Scale, and Functional Independence Measure Motor Domain in Individuals With Hereditary Cerebellar Ataxia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the interrater reliability of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and motor domain of the FIM (m-FIM) administered by physiotherapists in individuals with a hereditary cerebellar ataxia (HCA). DESIGN: Participants were assessed by 1 of 4 physiotherapists. Assessments were video-recorded and the remaining 3 physiotherapists scored the scales for each participant. Raters were blinded to each other's scores. SETTING: Assessments were administered at 3 clinical locations in separate states in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one individuals (mean age=47.63 years; SD=18.42; 13 male and 8 female) living in the community with an HCA were recruited (N=21). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total and single-item scores of the SARA, BBS, and m-FIM were examined. The m-FIM was conducted by interview. RESULTS: Intraclass coefficients (2,1) for the total scores of the m-FIM (0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.96), SARA (0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), and BBS (0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) indicated excellent interrater reliability. However, there was inconsistent agreement with the individual items, with SARA item 5 (right side) and item 7 (both sides) demonstrating poor interrater reliability and items 1 and 2 demonstrating excellent reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The m-FIM (by interview), SARA, and BBS have excellent interrater reliability for use when assessing individuals with an HCA. Physiotherapists could be considered for administration of the SARA in clinical trials. However, further work is required to improve the agreement of the single-item scores and to examine the other psychometric properties of these scales.

The feasibility of using mouthpiece ventilation in the intensive care unit for post-extubation breathing support after acute tetraplegia.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort of patients with acute tetraplegia. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of using mouthpiece ventilation (MPV) in the intensive care unit (ICU) for patients who are extubated after suffering an acute cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI). SETTING: ICU, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane Australia. METHODS: New admissions to ICU in the 14 months between April 2017 and June 2018 with a CSCI who underwent intubation were assessed for inclusion. MPV was provided to consenting participants (who were deemed likely to be able to maintain ventilation on their own) at the time of extubation and was utilised in addition to standard care while participants were awake. MPV settings, usage, and support hours to educate and facilitate MPV were collected. Feedback from participants and clinical staff was gathered throughout the study. Pre- and post-extubation measures of forced vital capacity (FVC), the frequency of endotracheal suction of sputum, and gas exchange using ventilation-perfusion ratios were recorded along with the incidence of reintubation. RESULTS: Fourteen participated in utilising MPV with 16 episodes of extubation. The average time per participant to have MPV titrated and bedside data collected was 178 minutes. Data from 16 episodes of extubation have been included. Three of the 14 participants failed initial extubation. Feedback from participants and clinicians has been positive and constructive, enabling MPV settings to be adapted to the person with acute CSCI during this pilot study. CONCLUSION: MPV is feasible to use post-extubation for people with CSCI in ICU. Pressure control mode MPV was deemed the most suitable for newly extubated acute CSCI patients. Intensive clinical support is required initially to provide education prior to MPV, and at the time of extubation for both patient and treating clinicians. Both report it to be a useful adjunct to ICU treatment.