ANZCA and FPM CPD Program resources: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) in the adult patient

Abstract
Background: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) is a single tool that is intuitive, is easy to use, and includes both agitation and sedation. The RASS has never been formally validated for pediatric populations. The objective of this study was to assess inter-rater agreement and criterion validity of the RASS in critically ill children.

Methods: To evaluate validity, the RASS score was compared to both a visual analog scale (VAS) scored by the patient's nurse, and the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS), performed by a researcher. The nurse completed the VAS by drawing a single line on a 10-cm scale anchored by "unresponsive" and "combative." The UMSS was used to validate the sedation portion of the RASS only, as it does not include grades of agitation. For inter-rater agreement, one researcher and the patient's nurse simultaneously but independently scored the RASS.

Results: One hundred patient encounters were obtained from 50 unique patients, ages 2 months to 21 years. Of these, 27 assessments were on children who were mechanically ventilated and 73 were on children who were spontaneously breathing. In validity testing, the RASS was highly correlated with the nurse's VAS (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.810, p < .0001) and with the UMSS (weighted kappa 0.902, p < .0001). Inter-rater agreement between nurse- and researcher-assessed RASS was excellent, with weighted kappa of 0.825 (p < .0001).

Conclusions: The RASS is a valid responsiveness tool for use in critically ill children. It allows for accurate assessment of awareness in mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing patients, and may improve our ability to titrate sedatives and assess for delirium in pediatrics.

This document is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for patients.

The intent of this statement is to suggest a framework for granting privileges that will help ensure competence of individuals who administer or supervise the administration of moderate sedation.

An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists.

Abstract
Sedating children for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures remains an area of rapid change and considerable controversy. Exploration of this topic is made difficult by the fact that the reports of techniques and outcomes for pediatric sedation appear in a wide range of subspecialty publications and rarely undergo comprehensive examination. In this review article, we will touch on many aspects of the topic of pediatric sedation from the perspective of the anesthesiologist. We begin with a review of the historical role of anesthesiologists in the development of the current standards for pediatric sedation. We also examine the current status of pediatric sedation as reflected in published studies and reports. A specific review of the issues surrounding safety of sedation services is included. Current trends in sedation practice, including the expanding role of potent sedative hypnotic drugs outside the field of anesthesiology, are noted. Finally, we suggest future areas for research and clinical improvement for sedation providers.

Abstract
Objectives: To synthesize the evidence comparing the adverse event (AE) profile and clinical effectiveness of midazolam and propofol for procedural sedation (PS) in adults in the emergency care setting.

Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the use of either midazolam and/or propofol for adult PS in the emergency department (ED). A systematic search strategy was developed and applied to six bibliographic reference databases. Three emergency medicine journals, the Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Newsletter, and conference proceedings were hand-searched. Retrieved articles were reviewed and data were abstracted using standardized data collection. Trial quality was assessed using the Jadad score. The outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients with AEs and the pooled mean difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS.

Results: Of 229 articles identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of AEs. Only one major AE to PS was found, resulting in no statistically significant difference in the proportion of major AEs between agents. Four studies were RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of clinical effectiveness. Two trials met criteria for good quality. The RCTs enrolled between 32 and 86 patients, and the most common indications for PS were orthopedic reductions and cardioversions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS in favor of propofol (effect difference 2.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -6.5 to 15.2).

Conclusions: The authors found no significant difference in the safety profile and the proportion of successful PS between midazolam and propofol for adults in the ED.

Abstract
We present an evidence-based clinical practice advisory for the administration of propofol for emergency department procedural sedation. We critically discuss indications, contraindications, personnel and monitoring requirements, dosing, coadministered medications, and patient recovery from propofol. Future research questions are considered.