RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Caregivers' involvement in the diagnostic and monitoring processes of the level of consciousness of patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DoC) is strongly encouraged by international guidelines, as current literature suggests a better chance to detect behavioural responses when caregivers are involved in clinical assessments. Since caregivers' involvement during clinical assessments can be difficult, the Social And Family Evaluation (SAFE) scale has been recently proposed as a standardised tool that caregivers can autonomously use to collect their opinions about the level of consciousness of patients with DoC, based on the behaviours manifested by the patients in a given time-window. OBJECTIVE: Providing preliminary results concerning SAFE adoption. METHODS: 22 patients with DoC were assessed through the Coma Recovery Scale-revised (CRS-r), while their caregivers filled-in the SAFE. RESULTS: The SAFE showed a very high internal consistency, very high test-retest reliability, and high criterion validity when correlated to the CRS-r total score. Moreover, in line with the literature, the SAFE allowed the detection of some behaviours indicative of a higher level of consciousness than those detected by clinicians through the CRS-r in more than half of the sample. CONCLUSION: Overall, these preliminary data are promising for the adoption of the SAFE to collect the opinions of the caregivers about the level of consciousness of patients with DoC, especially in those settings where it would be otherwise difficult to monitor the patients, such as long-term care structures and at home, as a tool for telemedicine allowing the monitoring of patients in remote settings.
RESUMO
The use of instrumental tools for improving both the diagnostic accuracy and the prognostic soundness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) plays an important role. However, the most recent international guidelines on DOC published by the American and the European Academies of Neurology and by the UK Royal College of Physicians contain heterogeneous recommendations on the implementation of these techniques in the clinical routine for both diagnosis and prognosis. With the present work, starting from the comparison of the DOC guidelines' recommendations, we look for possible explanations behind such discrepancies considering the adopted methodologies and the reference health systems that could have affected the guidelines' perspectives. We made a provocative argument about the need to find the most appropriate common methodology to retrieve and grade the evidence, increase the meta-analytic studies, and reduce the health policies that influence on the guidelines development that, in turn, should inform the health policies with the strongest scientific evidence.