Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness

Objective:  To assess the interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between nurses and senior doctors in the ED. Methods:  This was a prospective observational study with a convenience sample of patients aged 18 or above who presented with a decreased level of consciousness to a tertiar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Emergency medicine Australasia 2006-08, Vol.18 (4), p.379-384
Hauptverfasser: Holdgate, Anna, Ching, Natasha, Angonese, Lara
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 384
container_issue 4
container_start_page 379
container_title Emergency medicine Australasia
container_volume 18
creator Holdgate, Anna
Ching, Natasha
Angonese, Lara
description Objective:  To assess the interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between nurses and senior doctors in the ED. Methods:  This was a prospective observational study with a convenience sample of patients aged 18 or above who presented with a decreased level of consciousness to a tertiary hospital ED. A senior ED doctor (emergency physicians and trainees) and registered nurse each independently scored the patient’s GCS in blinded fashion within 15 min of each other. The data were then analysed to determine interrater reliability using the weighted kappa statistic and the size and directions of differences between paired scores were examined. Results:  A total of 108 eligible patients were enrolled, with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 14. Interrater agreement was excellent (weighted kappa > 0.75) for verbal scores and total GCS scores, and intermediate (weighted kappa 0.4–0.75) for motor and eye scores. Total GCS scores differed by more than two points in 10 of the 108 patients. Interrater agreement did not vary substantially across the range of actual numeric GCS scores. Conclusions:  Although the level of agreement for GCS scores was generally high, a significant proportion of patients had GCS scores which differed by two or more points. This degree of disagreement indicates that clinical decisions should not be based solely on single GCS scores.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00867.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68634032</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68634032</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3857-4e1b230e4d8fdd16a6d31319a77040da6d7c46e046c354c3c20acd53f36f2f093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkd9u0zAUxiMEYmPwCshX3CWzY8dJJW5QGR1Sxx-NjUvLdU5aF8cpPonaPAmvi7NW5RZLlo91vt9n-XxJQhjNWFzX24yVIk9lmfMsp1RmlFayzA7Pkstz4_m55uwieYW4pTSvBJu9TC6YrETOaXWZ_HnUweqVdbYfifVErwNAC74nK-j3AJ7sNiNaY7VHon1N_BAQkOw3sdWCxiFYvyb9BsjCaVx3ezLvWk3ujXYwGU6daBjW4M1Iatjp0D_5O9vaHsm0jbPeRoAMCM3gPCC-Tl402iG8OZ1XycOnmx_z23T5dfF5_mGZGl4VZSqAreJHQNRVU9dMallzxtlMlyUVtI7X0ggJVEjDC2G4yak2dcEbLpu8oTN-lbw7-u5C93sA7FVr0YBz2kM3oJKV5ILyPAqro9CEDjFAo3bBtjqMilE1haK2apq3mmavplDUUyjqENG3pzeGVQv1P_CUQhS8Pwr21sH438bq5u4uFhFPj7jFHg5nXIdfkeFloX5-WaiP3wq-XN5_V5z_BYoUrVk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68634032</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Holdgate, Anna ; Ching, Natasha ; Angonese, Lara</creator><creatorcontrib>Holdgate, Anna ; Ching, Natasha ; Angonese, Lara</creatorcontrib><description>Objective:  To assess the interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between nurses and senior doctors in the ED. Methods:  This was a prospective observational study with a convenience sample of patients aged 18 or above who presented with a decreased level of consciousness to a tertiary hospital ED. A senior ED doctor (emergency physicians and trainees) and registered nurse each independently scored the patient’s GCS in blinded fashion within 15 min of each other. The data were then analysed to determine interrater reliability using the weighted kappa statistic and the size and directions of differences between paired scores were examined. Results:  A total of 108 eligible patients were enrolled, with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 14. Interrater agreement was excellent (weighted kappa &gt; 0.75) for verbal scores and total GCS scores, and intermediate (weighted kappa 0.4–0.75) for motor and eye scores. Total GCS scores differed by more than two points in 10 of the 108 patients. Interrater agreement did not vary substantially across the range of actual numeric GCS scores. Conclusions:  Although the level of agreement for GCS scores was generally high, a significant proportion of patients had GCS scores which differed by two or more points. This degree of disagreement indicates that clinical decisions should not be based solely on single GCS scores.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1742-6731</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1742-6723</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00867.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16842308</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Coma Scale ; Consciousness Disorders - diagnosis ; Emergency Medicine - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Emergency Nursing - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Emergency Service, Hospital - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Female ; Glasgow ; Glasgow Coma Scale - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; interrater agreement ; Male ; Middle Aged ; New South Wales ; Observer Variation ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results</subject><ispartof>Emergency medicine Australasia, 2006-08, Vol.18 (4), p.379-384</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3857-4e1b230e4d8fdd16a6d31319a77040da6d7c46e046c354c3c20acd53f36f2f093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3857-4e1b230e4d8fdd16a6d31319a77040da6d7c46e046c354c3c20acd53f36f2f093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1742-6723.2006.00867.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1742-6723.2006.00867.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16842308$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holdgate, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ching, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angonese, Lara</creatorcontrib><title>Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness</title><title>Emergency medicine Australasia</title><addtitle>Emerg Med Australas</addtitle><description>Objective:  To assess the interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between nurses and senior doctors in the ED. Methods:  This was a prospective observational study with a convenience sample of patients aged 18 or above who presented with a decreased level of consciousness to a tertiary hospital ED. A senior ED doctor (emergency physicians and trainees) and registered nurse each independently scored the patient’s GCS in blinded fashion within 15 min of each other. The data were then analysed to determine interrater reliability using the weighted kappa statistic and the size and directions of differences between paired scores were examined. Results:  A total of 108 eligible patients were enrolled, with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 14. Interrater agreement was excellent (weighted kappa &gt; 0.75) for verbal scores and total GCS scores, and intermediate (weighted kappa 0.4–0.75) for motor and eye scores. Total GCS scores differed by more than two points in 10 of the 108 patients. Interrater agreement did not vary substantially across the range of actual numeric GCS scores. Conclusions:  Although the level of agreement for GCS scores was generally high, a significant proportion of patients had GCS scores which differed by two or more points. This degree of disagreement indicates that clinical decisions should not be based solely on single GCS scores.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Coma Scale</subject><subject>Consciousness Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Emergency Nursing - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Emergency Service, Hospital - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glasgow</subject><subject>Glasgow Coma Scale - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>interrater agreement</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>New South Wales</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><issn>1742-6731</issn><issn>1742-6723</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkd9u0zAUxiMEYmPwCshX3CWzY8dJJW5QGR1Sxx-NjUvLdU5aF8cpPonaPAmvi7NW5RZLlo91vt9n-XxJQhjNWFzX24yVIk9lmfMsp1RmlFayzA7Pkstz4_m55uwieYW4pTSvBJu9TC6YrETOaXWZ_HnUweqVdbYfifVErwNAC74nK-j3AJ7sNiNaY7VHon1N_BAQkOw3sdWCxiFYvyb9BsjCaVx3ezLvWk3ujXYwGU6daBjW4M1Iatjp0D_5O9vaHsm0jbPeRoAMCM3gPCC-Tl402iG8OZ1XycOnmx_z23T5dfF5_mGZGl4VZSqAreJHQNRVU9dMallzxtlMlyUVtI7X0ggJVEjDC2G4yak2dcEbLpu8oTN-lbw7-u5C93sA7FVr0YBz2kM3oJKV5ILyPAqro9CEDjFAo3bBtjqMilE1haK2apq3mmavplDUUyjqENG3pzeGVQv1P_CUQhS8Pwr21sH438bq5u4uFhFPj7jFHg5nXIdfkeFloX5-WaiP3wq-XN5_V5z_BYoUrVk</recordid><startdate>200608</startdate><enddate>200608</enddate><creator>Holdgate, Anna</creator><creator>Ching, Natasha</creator><creator>Angonese, Lara</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Asia</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200608</creationdate><title>Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness</title><author>Holdgate, Anna ; Ching, Natasha ; Angonese, Lara</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3857-4e1b230e4d8fdd16a6d31319a77040da6d7c46e046c354c3c20acd53f36f2f093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Coma Scale</topic><topic>Consciousness Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Emergency Nursing - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Emergency Service, Hospital - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glasgow</topic><topic>Glasgow Coma Scale - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>interrater agreement</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>New South Wales</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holdgate, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ching, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angonese, Lara</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Emergency medicine Australasia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holdgate, Anna</au><au>Ching, Natasha</au><au>Angonese, Lara</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness</atitle><jtitle>Emergency medicine Australasia</jtitle><addtitle>Emerg Med Australas</addtitle><date>2006-08</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>379</spage><epage>384</epage><pages>379-384</pages><issn>1742-6731</issn><eissn>1742-6723</eissn><abstract>Objective:  To assess the interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between nurses and senior doctors in the ED. Methods:  This was a prospective observational study with a convenience sample of patients aged 18 or above who presented with a decreased level of consciousness to a tertiary hospital ED. A senior ED doctor (emergency physicians and trainees) and registered nurse each independently scored the patient’s GCS in blinded fashion within 15 min of each other. The data were then analysed to determine interrater reliability using the weighted kappa statistic and the size and directions of differences between paired scores were examined. Results:  A total of 108 eligible patients were enrolled, with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 14. Interrater agreement was excellent (weighted kappa &gt; 0.75) for verbal scores and total GCS scores, and intermediate (weighted kappa 0.4–0.75) for motor and eye scores. Total GCS scores differed by more than two points in 10 of the 108 patients. Interrater agreement did not vary substantially across the range of actual numeric GCS scores. Conclusions:  Although the level of agreement for GCS scores was generally high, a significant proportion of patients had GCS scores which differed by two or more points. This degree of disagreement indicates that clinical decisions should not be based solely on single GCS scores.</abstract><cop>Melbourne, Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Asia</pub><pmid>16842308</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00867.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1742-6731
ispartof Emergency medicine Australasia, 2006-08, Vol.18 (4), p.379-384
issn 1742-6731
1742-6723
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68634032
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Coma Scale
Consciousness Disorders - diagnosis
Emergency Medicine - statistics & numerical data
Emergency Nursing - statistics & numerical data
Emergency Service, Hospital - statistics & numerical data
Female
Glasgow
Glasgow Coma Scale - statistics & numerical data
Humans
interrater agreement
Male
Middle Aged
New South Wales
Observer Variation
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
title Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T10%3A53%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Variability%20in%20agreement%20between%20physicians%20and%20nurses%20when%20measuring%20the%20Glasgow%20Coma%20Scale%20in%20the%20emergency%20department%20limits%20its%20clinical%20usefulness&rft.jtitle=Emergency%20medicine%20Australasia&rft.au=Holdgate,%20Anna&rft.date=2006-08&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=379&rft.epage=384&rft.pages=379-384&rft.issn=1742-6731&rft.eissn=1742-6723&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00867.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68634032%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68634032&rft_id=info:pmid/16842308&rfr_iscdi=true