Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology.

PURPOSE: To assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures-(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement-were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals). RESULTS: Departmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Departmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.

Evaluation of the compliance between EEG monitoring (Bispectral IndexTM) and Ramsey Sedation Scale to measure the depth of sedation in the patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the compliance between electroencephalogram monitoring (Bispectral Index, BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) to measure the depth of sedation in patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in an emergency department. This study also aimed to investigate the usefulness of this compliance for early diagnosis of complications. METHODS: A total of 54 consecutive patients during PSA in the emergency department were included in this study. The BIS and RSS scores at regular intervals and also all complications and interventions of these patients were evaluated. The compliance between the BIS and the RSS score was evaluated. The BIS scores of cases with complication and without complication were compared. RESULTS: The BIS and RSS scores exhibited a high correlation was detected between the average BIS and RSS scores at each time interval (r=-0.989, p<0.001). The BIS scores of the complicated and uncomplicated cases were different at 15 min after the procedure (p=0.019). The cases were divided into two groups according to the BIS scores <70 and ≥70; complication rates were higher in the BIS score <70 group during the procedure (p=0.037). CONCLUSION: In our study, a high correlation was detected between BIS monitoring and RSS scores. BIS monitoring for PSA can be used as a full-time, objective, and an alternative technique for person-dependent clinical scales and also as an indicator for early diagnosis of complications.

Coding for Conscious Sedation.

Conscious sedation codes are based on time intervals and patient age.

Comparacao dos niveis de sedacao graduados pela escala Comfort-B e pelo indice biespectral de criancas em ventilacao mecanica na unidade de terapia intensiva pediatrica / A comparison of gradual sedation levels using the Comfort-B scale and bispectral index in children on mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit

Objetivo: Comparar os escores resultantes da escala Comfort-B com o índice biespectral, em crianças de uma unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Onze crianças com idades entre 1 mês e 16 anos, submetidas a ventilação mecânica e sedação, foram classificadas pelo índice biespectral e pela escala Comfort-B, simultaneamente. Foi obtido registro de seus comportamentos por filmagem digital; posteriormente tal registro foi avaliado por três observadores independentes e foram aplicados testes de concordância (Bland-Altman e Kappa). Foi testada a correlação entre os dois métodos (correlação de Pearson). Resultados: Foram realizadas 35 observações em 11 pacientes. A concordância entre os avaliadores, segundo o coeficiente de Kappa, variou de 0,56 a 0,75 (p<0,001). Houve associação positiva e regular entre índice biespectral e Comfort-B, com r=0,424 (p=0,011) até r=0,498 (p=0,002). Conclusão: Devido à alta concordância entre os avaliadores independentes e a correlação regular entre os dois métodos, conclui-se que a escala Comfort-B é reprodutível e útil na classificação do nível de sedação de crianças em ventilação mecânica. .

Objective: Compare the scores resulting from the Comfort-B scale with the bispectral index in children in an intensive care unit. Methods: Eleven children between the ages of 1 month and 16 years requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation were simultaneously classified based on the bispectral index and the Comfort-B scale. Their behavior was recorded using digital photography, and the record was later evaluated by three independent evaluators. Agreement tests (Bland-Altman and Kappa) were then performed. The correlation between the two methods (Pearson correlation) was tested. Results: In total, 35 observations were performed on 11 patients. Based on the Kappa coefficient, the agreement among evaluators ranged from 0.56 to 0.75 (p<0.001). There was a positive and consistent association between the bispectral index and the Comfort-B scale [r=0.424 (p=0.011) to r=0.498 (p=0.002)]. Conclusion: Due to the strong correlation between the independent evaluators and the consistent correlation between the two methods, the results suggest that the Comfort-B scale is reproducible and useful in classifying the level of sedation in children requiring mechanical ventilation. .

Sedation of the pediatric patient.

Children's behavior during dental treatment is often unpredictable. Many techniques for behavior management have been developed and include both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods. Pharmacologic management with sedation has been shown to be an important adjunct in treating the fearful, uncooperative or precommunicative patient. This article reviews the definitions, levels, techniques and pharmacology of typical drugs used for sedation. The protocols for safe management of children before, during and after sedation are also discussed.

Sedation scales and measures--a literature review.

The monitoring and assessment of the degree of conscious sedation experienced by patients is important for both clinical practice and in research. Whereas clinical monitoring remains the gold standard for safety in patient care, numerous measures are available to supplement this and to provide quantitative data on level of sedation. This manuscript provides an overview of existing measures of the degree of sedation. Scales that have been used in published research were identified from a search of Medline and Google Scholar, and for each scale we identified the characteristics of the scale and degree to which the reliability and validity of the scale had been measured.

From sedation to continuous sedation until death: how has the conceptual basis of sedation in end-of-life care changed over time?

CONTEXT: Numerous attempts have been made to describe and define sedation in end-of-life care over time. However, confusion and inconsistency in the use of terms and definitions persevere in the literature, making interpretation, comparison, and extrapolation of many studies and case analyses problematic. OBJECTIVES: This evidence review aims to address and account for the conceptual debate over the terminology and definitions ascribed to sedation at the end of life over time. METHODS: Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) and two high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal) were searched for indexed materials published between 1945 and 2011. This search resulted in bibliographic data of 328 published outputs. Terms and definitions were manually scanned, coded, and linguistically analyzed by means of term description criteria and discourse analysis. RESULTS: The review shows that terminology has evolved from simple to complex terms with definitions varying in length, comprising different aspects of sedation such as indications for use, pharmacology, patient symptomatology, target population, time of initiation, and ethical considerations, in combinations of a minimum of two or more of these aspects. CONCLUSION: There is a pressing need to resolve the conceptual confusion that currently exists in the literature to bring clarity to the dialogue and build a base of commonality on which to design research and enhance the practice of sedation in end-of-life care.

A comparison of gradual sedation levels using the Comfort-B scale and bispectral index in children on mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the scores resulting from the Comfort-B scale with the bispectral index in children in an intensive care unit. METHODS: Eleven children between the ages of 1 month and 16 years requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation were simultaneously classified based on the bispectral index and the Comfort-B scale. Their behavior was recorded using digital photography, and the record was later evaluated by three independent evaluators. Agreement tests (Bland-Altman and Kappa) were then performed. The correlation between the two methods (Pearson correlation) was tested. RESULTS: In total, 35 observations were performed on 11 patients. Based on the Kappa coefficient, the agreement among evaluators ranged from 0.56 to 0.75 (p<0.001). There was a positive and consistent association between the bispectral index and the Comfort-B scale [r=0.424 (p=0.011) to r=0.498 (p=0.002)]. CONCLUSION: Due to the strong correlation between the independent evaluators and the consistent correlation between the two methods, the results suggest that the Comfort-B scale is reproducible and useful in classifying the level of sedation in children requiring mechanical ventilation.

Pharmacodynamic considerations for moderate and deep sedation.

Moderate and deep sedation can be provided using various classes of drugs, each having unique mechanisms of action. While drugs within a given classification share similar mechanisms and effects, certain classes demonstrate superior efficacy but added concern regarding safety. This continuing education article will highlight essential principles of pharmacodynamics and apply these to drugs commonly used to produce moderate and deep sedation.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). INTERVENTIONS: Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.

Sedation assessment tool to score acute behavioural disturbance in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the sedation assessment tool (SAT) in assessing patient response to treatment for acute behavioural disturbance (ABD). METHODS: The SAT is a simplified version of the altered mental status score (AMSS) and is a 7-point scale assessing levels of agitation and sedation using only two descriptors. To assess the SAT we firstly compared plots of the SAT and the AMSS versus time in patients with ABD recruited to a clinical trial. AMSS were converted to the SAT for this comparison. Second, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated for an increase in the SAT to +2 or +3 as a predictor of whether additional sedation was required in a prospective cohort of 138 patients. Third, interrater reliability was assessed using two individuals to score the same patient at two different time points and finally the time to record the score was measured. RESULTS: Plots of AMSS and SAT for 91 patients in the clinical trial illustrated similar trends in agitation/sedation. Seventeen of 138 patients in the second cohort had an increase in the SAT. Fifteen of 17 (88%) received additional sedation. The sensitivity and specificity of the SAT for additional sedation was 100% (95% CI 75-100%) and 98% (95% CI 94-100%), respectively. The median time for staff to assign the SAT was 10 s (range 3-15 s). Interrater reliability was high with a kappa of 0.87. CONCLUSION: The SAT is a simple, rapid and useful measure of the level of agitation/sedation in patients with ABD. Increases in the score reliably indicated the need for further sedation.

The use of sedation in the dental outpatient setting: a web-based survey of dentists.

There were 7276 e-mail requests sent to dentists in the United States and Canada requesting participation in a short web-based survey to update earlier information regarding the use of dental outpatient sedation. Participants were questioned regarding their use of dental outpatient sedation, including the frequency of use, type of sedation used, route ofadministration, medications used, physiologic monitoring employed, and availability qfantagonist medications and an automated external defibrillator In comparison to earlier studies, the use of outpatient dental sedation continues to change. The use of enteral sedation may be increasing, but now is differentiated by minimal and moderate sedation with different training requirements. The use of parenteral sedation by practitioners also appears to be increasing.

Effect of epidural neuraxial blockade-dependent sedation on the Ramsay Sedation Scale and the composite auditory evoked potentials index in surgical intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Peripheral deafferentation induced by neuraxial anesthesia reduces the degree of cortical arousal. This study investigated whether epidural analgesia blockade decreased sedation, as measured by the rapidly extracted auditory evoked potentials index, A-line autoregressive index (AAI) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) in sedated surgical intensive care patients, and looked at whether this was a concentration-dependent effect of lidocaine. METHODS: Forty patients underwent major lower abdominal surgery and received epidural analgesia in the surgical intensive care unit. Patients were continuously sedated with propofol to achieve an RSS value of 3, randomly divided into two groups, and received epidural analgesia with 10 mL of 0.5% or 1% lidocaine. Sedation was evaluated using the RSS and AAI, and analgesia was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). RSS, AAI, electromyography (EMG) activity of AAI and VAS values were recorded at 5 minutes before and 30, 60 and 90 minutes after epidural lidocaine administration. RESULTS: Epidural 0.5% lidocaine produced a reduction of AAI, EMG and VAS at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after administration. For 1% epidural lidocaine administration, AAI, EMG and VAS were also reduced at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after epidural lidocaine administration. However, there was no difference in the AAI between the two concentrations; moreover, no significant change was observed in the RSS. CONCLUSION: Epidural lidocaine analgesia could potentiate sedation in patients evaluated by the AAI, but had no effect on the RSS. The present study suggests that the AAI could provide an objective and more precise index than the RSS in evaluation of sedation level in patients who are undergoing epidural pain management in the intensive care unit.

Validity and reliability of an intuitive conscious sedation scoring tool: the nursing instrument for the communication of sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a symmetrical 7-level scale (+3, "dangerously agitated" to -3, "deeply sedated") that is both intuitive and easy to use, the Nursing Instrument for the Communication of Sedation (NICS). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: Mixed surgical, medical intensive care unit (ICU) population. INTERVENTIONS: Patient assessment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Criterion, construct, face validity, and interrater reliability of NICS over time and comparison of ease of use and nursing preference between NICS and four common intensive care unit sedation scales. A total of 395 observations were performed in 104 patients (20 intubated [INT], 84 non intubated) by 59 intensive care unit providers. Criterion validity was tested comparing NICS WITH the 8-point level of arousal scale, demonstrating excellent correlation (rs = .96 overall, .95 non intubated, 0.85 intubated, all p < .001). Construct validity was confirmed by comparing NICS with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, demonstrating excellent correlation (rs = .98, p < .001). Face validity was determined in a blinded survey of 53 intensive care unit nurses evaluating NICS and four other sedation scales. NICS was highly rated as easy to score, intuitive, and a clinically relevant measure of sedation, and agitation and was preferred overall (74% NICS, 17% Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, 11% Other, p < .001 NICS vs. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale). Interrater reliability was assessed, using the five scales at three timed intervals, during which 37% of patients received sedative medication. The mean NICS score consistently correlated with each of the other scales over time with an rs of >.9. Using the intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of Interrater reliability, NICS scored as high, or higher than Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale, Motor Activity Assessment Scale, or Ramsay over the three time periods. CONCLUSION: NICS is a valid and reliable sedation scale for use in a mixed population of intensive care unit patients. NICS ranked highest in nursing preference and ease of communication and may thus permit more effective and interactive management of sedation.

[Analysis of 4 sedation rating scales in the critical patient]. / Análisis de 4 escalas de valoración de la sedación en el paciente crítico.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to verify the relationship between different Sedation Rating Scales (SRSs) for critical patients on mechanical ventilation and to know the relationship between the SRSs, clinical information and the dose of sedative and analgesia drugs (SAD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A longitudinal, prospective analytic pilot study conducted in a Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit of a tertiary hospital from October-December 2006. The sample included patients who required administration of SAP and mechanical ventilation. The following biological parameters and scales were evaluated: patient's demographics, RAMSAY, Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS), Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MASS), SAD dose, mean blood pressure, cardiac rate, pupil diameter and respiratory frequency. Spearman coefficient of interrelation was used to compare the relationship between the different scales. RESULTS: A total of 2.412 measurements were made for each variable: SRS, clinical information and SAD dose in 30 patients with different diseases, 63 % males, age 52 +/- 19 years, APACHEII 24 +/- 8, SAPSII 44 +/- 16, with an ICU mortality UCI 34 %. Median and IQ range of stay in ICU 15.5 and 20 days, of mechanical ventilation 9 and 14 days, of SAD 6 and 5.5 days and of paralyzing drugs (PD) 2 and 5 days, respectively. Interrelation was detected between all the SRSs, with p < 0.0001. The relationship between SAS, RASS and MASS was direct, whereas these were related inversely to RAMSAY. No evidence of interrelation was found between the SRSs, the clinical information and the SAD doses. CONCLUSION: The RAMSAY scale that has not been validated in ICU patients has a strong interrelation with the other already validated SRSs. SRSs are subjective and do not correlate with the clinical information and the SAD doses, probably due to the sample's small size and heterogeneity.