Development and reliability and validity testing of the assessment scale for patients with persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state discharge from the anesthesia recovery room
10.3760/cma.j.cn211501-20210226-00576
- VernacularTitle:持续植物人状态或微小意识状态患者转出麻醉恢复室评估量表的制订及信效度检验
- Author:
Yiying XIONG
1
;
Qian ZHANG
;
Xiang LI
;
Chaoyang CHEN
;
Xinxin YUE
;
Zeyu ZHAO
Author Information
1. 成都中医药大学附属四川省八一康复中心护理部，成都 611135
- Keywords:
Anesthesia recovery period;
Postanesthesia nursing;
Persistent vegetative state;
Minimally conscious state;
Reliability;
Validity
- From:
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
2022;38(9):653-658
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To develop and test the reliability and validity of the assessment scale for patients with persistent vegetative state (PVS) or minimally conscious state (MCS) discharge from the anesthesia recovery room after operation.Methods:From September 2018 to October 2020, three dimensions and 17 item pools were determined through literature review and discussion among the project members. Two rounds of expert consultation were conducted to determine the respiratory (R), circulatory (C), oxygenation (O), bispectral index (B) and neuromuscular monitoring (N) scale (RCOBN scale), the reliability and validity were tested. 87 patients with PVS or MCS after operation Affiliated Sichuan Bayi Rehabilitation Center of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected to verify the effectiveness.Results:In the first round, 23 questionnaires were distributed. The total score of experts was 50 ± 3, F=9.24, CV were 0.00-0.43. The Cronbach α coefficient of each dimension was 0.782-0.846, and the Cronbach α coefficient of the total scale was 0.813. In the second round, 10 questionnaires were distributed. The item-level content validity index was 0.7-1.0, the probability of random consistency ( Pc) was 0.001-0.117, the adjusted kappa value ( k*) was 0.567-1.000, and the sum of the index scores corresponding to k* > 0.74 was 8. The scale-level content validity index of the overall consistency was 0.87. The ratio of patients transferred out of PACU by two rounds of evaluation method was 100 : 96.55, and the difference was not statistically significant ( χ2=3.05, P>0.05). The time of the first round of assessment was significantly longer than that of the second round, which were (197 ± 52) s and (58 ± 14) s respectively. The difference was statistically significant ( t=26.52, P < 0.01). Conclusions:The RCOBN scale has high reliability and validity. It can be used as an assessment scale for patients with PVS or MCS to transfer out of PACU after surgery, and those with a total score of 8 can be transferred out of PACU.
