Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury: Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium

The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Serial clinical examination represents the most fundamental and basic form of neurological monitoring, and is often the first and only form of such monitoring in patients. Even in patients subjected to physiological monitoring using a range of technologies, the clinical examination remains an essential tool to follow neurological progress. Key aspects of the clinical examination have now been systematized into scoring schemes, and address consciousness, pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD). The Glasgow Coma Scale has been the traditional tool to measure consciousness, but the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has recently been validated in a variety of settings, and at present, both represent clinically useful tools. Assessment of PAD in neurologically compromised patients present special challenges. For pain, the Numeric Rating Scale is the preferred initial approach, with either the Behavioral Pain Scale or the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in subjects who are not able to respond. The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised may be useful in patients with severe disorders of consciousness. Conventional sedation scoring tools for critical care, such as the Richmond Area Sedation Scale (RASS) and Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) may provide reasonable tools in some neurocritical care patients. The use of sedative drugs and neuromuscular blockers may invalidate the use of some clinical examination tools in others. The use of sedation interruption to assess neurological status can result in physiological derangement in unstable patients (such as those with uncontrolled intracranial hypertension), and is not recommended.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)27-37
Number of pages11
JournalNeurocritical Care
Volume21
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Delirium
Pain Measurement
Coma
Brain Injuries
Pain
Physiologic Monitoring
Critical Care
Consciousness
Consciousness Disorders
Neuromuscular Blocking Agents
Glasgow Coma Scale
Intracranial Hypertension
Nociception
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Patient Care
Observation
Technology
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Coma
  • Delirium
  • Neurologic examination
  • Pain
  • Scale
  • Sedation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring (2014). Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury: Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium. Neurocritical Care, 21(2), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-014-0025-5

Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury : Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium. / The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring.

In: Neurocritical Care, Vol. 21, No. 2, 01.10.2014, p. 27-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring 2014, 'Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury: Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium', Neurocritical Care, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-014-0025-5
The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring. Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury: Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium. Neurocritical Care. 2014 Oct 1;21(2):27-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-014-0025-5
The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring. / Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury : Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium. In: Neurocritical Care. 2014 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 27-37.
@article{187853ccefd34129af84c36c51937317,
title = "Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury: Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium",
abstract = "Serial clinical examination represents the most fundamental and basic form of neurological monitoring, and is often the first and only form of such monitoring in patients. Even in patients subjected to physiological monitoring using a range of technologies, the clinical examination remains an essential tool to follow neurological progress. Key aspects of the clinical examination have now been systematized into scoring schemes, and address consciousness, pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD). The Glasgow Coma Scale has been the traditional tool to measure consciousness, but the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has recently been validated in a variety of settings, and at present, both represent clinically useful tools. Assessment of PAD in neurologically compromised patients present special challenges. For pain, the Numeric Rating Scale is the preferred initial approach, with either the Behavioral Pain Scale or the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in subjects who are not able to respond. The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised may be useful in patients with severe disorders of consciousness. Conventional sedation scoring tools for critical care, such as the Richmond Area Sedation Scale (RASS) and Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) may provide reasonable tools in some neurocritical care patients. The use of sedative drugs and neuromuscular blockers may invalidate the use of some clinical examination tools in others. The use of sedation interruption to assess neurological status can result in physiological derangement in unstable patients (such as those with uncontrolled intracranial hypertension), and is not recommended.",
keywords = "Coma, Delirium, Neurologic examination, Pain, Scale, Sedation",
author = "{The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring} and Riker, {Richard R.} and Fugate, {Jennifer E.} and {Le Roux}, Peter and Menon, {David K.} and Paul Vespa and Giuseppe Citerio and Bader, {Mary Kay} and Brophy, {Gretchen M.} and Diringer, {Michael N.} and Nino Stocchetti and Walter Videtta and Rocco Armonda and Neeraj Badjatia and Julian Boesel and Randal Chesnut and Sherry Chou and Jan Claassen and Marek Czosnyka and {De Georgia}, Michael and Anthony Figaji and Raimund Helbok and David Horowitz and Peter Hutchinson and Monisha Kumar and Molly McNett and Chad Miller and Andrew Naidech and Mauro Oddo and Olson, {Dai Wai} and Kristine O’Phelan and Javier Provencio and Corina Puppo and Claudia Robertson and Schmidt, {J. Michael} and Fabio Taccone",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12028-014-0025-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "27--37",
journal = "Neurocritical Care",
issn = "1541-6933",
publisher = "Humana Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical Monitoring Scales in Acute Brain Injury

T2 - Assessment of Coma, Pain, Agitation, and Delirium

AU - The Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring

AU - Riker, Richard R.

AU - Fugate, Jennifer E.

AU - Le Roux, Peter

AU - Menon, David K.

AU - Vespa, Paul

AU - Citerio, Giuseppe

AU - Bader, Mary Kay

AU - Brophy, Gretchen M.

AU - Diringer, Michael N.

AU - Stocchetti, Nino

AU - Videtta, Walter

AU - Armonda, Rocco

AU - Badjatia, Neeraj

AU - Boesel, Julian

AU - Chesnut, Randal

AU - Chou, Sherry

AU - Claassen, Jan

AU - Czosnyka, Marek

AU - De Georgia, Michael

AU - Figaji, Anthony

AU - Helbok, Raimund

AU - Horowitz, David

AU - Hutchinson, Peter

AU - Kumar, Monisha

AU - McNett, Molly

AU - Miller, Chad

AU - Naidech, Andrew

AU - Oddo, Mauro

AU - Olson, Dai Wai

AU - O’Phelan, Kristine

AU - Provencio, Javier

AU - Puppo, Corina

AU - Robertson, Claudia

AU - Schmidt, J. Michael

AU - Taccone, Fabio

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - Serial clinical examination represents the most fundamental and basic form of neurological monitoring, and is often the first and only form of such monitoring in patients. Even in patients subjected to physiological monitoring using a range of technologies, the clinical examination remains an essential tool to follow neurological progress. Key aspects of the clinical examination have now been systematized into scoring schemes, and address consciousness, pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD). The Glasgow Coma Scale has been the traditional tool to measure consciousness, but the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has recently been validated in a variety of settings, and at present, both represent clinically useful tools. Assessment of PAD in neurologically compromised patients present special challenges. For pain, the Numeric Rating Scale is the preferred initial approach, with either the Behavioral Pain Scale or the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in subjects who are not able to respond. The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised may be useful in patients with severe disorders of consciousness. Conventional sedation scoring tools for critical care, such as the Richmond Area Sedation Scale (RASS) and Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) may provide reasonable tools in some neurocritical care patients. The use of sedative drugs and neuromuscular blockers may invalidate the use of some clinical examination tools in others. The use of sedation interruption to assess neurological status can result in physiological derangement in unstable patients (such as those with uncontrolled intracranial hypertension), and is not recommended.

AB - Serial clinical examination represents the most fundamental and basic form of neurological monitoring, and is often the first and only form of such monitoring in patients. Even in patients subjected to physiological monitoring using a range of technologies, the clinical examination remains an essential tool to follow neurological progress. Key aspects of the clinical examination have now been systematized into scoring schemes, and address consciousness, pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD). The Glasgow Coma Scale has been the traditional tool to measure consciousness, but the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has recently been validated in a variety of settings, and at present, both represent clinically useful tools. Assessment of PAD in neurologically compromised patients present special challenges. For pain, the Numeric Rating Scale is the preferred initial approach, with either the Behavioral Pain Scale or the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in subjects who are not able to respond. The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised may be useful in patients with severe disorders of consciousness. Conventional sedation scoring tools for critical care, such as the Richmond Area Sedation Scale (RASS) and Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) may provide reasonable tools in some neurocritical care patients. The use of sedative drugs and neuromuscular blockers may invalidate the use of some clinical examination tools in others. The use of sedation interruption to assess neurological status can result in physiological derangement in unstable patients (such as those with uncontrolled intracranial hypertension), and is not recommended.

KW - Coma

KW - Delirium

KW - Neurologic examination

KW - Pain

KW - Scale

KW - Sedation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924985379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924985379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12028-014-0025-5

DO - 10.1007/s12028-014-0025-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 25208671

AN - SCOPUS:84924985379

VL - 21

SP - 27

EP - 37

JO - Neurocritical Care

JF - Neurocritical Care

SN - 1541-6933

IS - 2

ER -