Sedative medications are widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Structured assessment of sedation and agitation is useful to titrate sedative medications and to evaluate agitated behavior, yet existing sedation scales have limitations. We measured inter-rater reliability and validity of a new 10-level (+4 "combative" to -5 "unarousable") scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), in two phases. In phase 1, we demonstrated excellent (r = 0.956, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.948; kappa = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.75) inter-rater reliability among five investigators (two physicians, two nurses, and one pharmacist) in adult ICU patient encounters (n = 192). Robust inter-rater reliability (r = 0.922-0.983) (kappa = 0.64-0.82) was demonstrated for patients from medical, surgical, cardiac surgery, coronary, and neuroscience ICUs, patients with and without mechanical ventilation, and patients with and without sedative medications. In validity testing, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unresponsive," including all patient subgroups (r = 0.84-0.98). In the second phase, after implementation of RASS in our medical ICU, inter-rater reliability between a nurse educator and 27 RASS-trained bedside nurses in 101 patient encounters was high (r = 0.964, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.950; kappa = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.69, 0.90) and very good for all subgroups (r = 0.773-0.970, kappa = 0.66-0.89). Correlations between RASS and the Ramsay sedation scale (r = -0.78) and the Sedation Agitation Scale (r = 0.78) confirmed validity. Our nurses described RASS as logical, easy to administer, and readily recalled. RASS has high reliability and validity in medical and surgical, ventilated and nonventilated, and sedated and nonsedated adult ICU patients.

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Objective To examine the effects of mechanical (toothbrushing), pharmacological (topical oral chlorhexidine), and combination (toothbrushing plus chlorhexidine) oral care on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods Critically ill adults in 3 intensive care units were enrolled within 24 hours of intubation in a randomized controlled clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of pneumonia at the time of intubation and edentulous patients were excluded. Patients (n = 547) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: 0.12% solution chlorhexidine oral swab twice daily, toothbrushing thrice daily, both toothbrushing and chlorhexidine, or control (usual care). Ventilator-associated pneumonia was determined by using the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS). Results The 4 groups did not differ significantly in clinical characteristics. At day 3 analysis, 249 patients remained in the study. Among patients without pneumonia at baseline, pneumonia developed in 24% (CPIS ≥6) by day 3 in those treated with chlorhexidine. When data on all patients were analyzed together, mixed models analysis indicated no effect of either chlorhexidine (P = .29) or toothbrushing (P = .95). However, chlorhexidine significantly reduced the incidence of pneumonia on day 3 (CPIS ≥6) among patients who had CPIS <6 at baseline (P = .006). Toothbrushing had no effect on CPIS and did not enhance the effect of chlorhexidine. Conclusions Chlorhexidine, but not toothbrushing, reduced early ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients without pneumonia at baseline.

• Background No data have been collected to describe the products, methods, and frequency of oral care needed to reduce dental plaque, oral colonization, and ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients.• Objectives To describe the frequency of use of oral care interventions reported by nurses in several intensive care units in a large southeastern medical center.• Methods Staff members completed a written survey describing their oral care practices, and oral care interventions were recorded from the unit’s flow sheet for the previous 24 hours for all patients at 5 randomly selected times during 1 month.• Results Most respondents (75%) reported providing oral care 2 or 3 times daily for nonintubated patients, and 72% reported providing care 5 times daily or more for intubated patients. However, oral care was documented on the unit’s flow sheet a mean of 1.2 times per patient. Reported use of toothpaste and a toothbrush was significantly greater in nonintubated patients (P &lt; .001), and use of a sponge toothette was significantly greater in intubated patients (P &lt; .001). Nurses’ mean rating of oral care priority was 53.9 on a 100-point scale.• Conclusions Despite evidence that they are ineffective for plaque removal, sponge toothettes remain the primary tool for oral care, especially in intubated patients in intensive care units. Nurses report frequent oral care interventions, but few are documented. Education and focus on good oral care strategies are required; nursing research to delineate the best procedure for all patients in intensive care units is needed.

Oral health is influenced by oral microbial flora, which are concentrated in dental plaque. Dental plaque provides a microhabitat for organisms and an opportunity for adherence of the organisms to either the tooth surface or other microorganisms. In critically ill patients, potential pathogens can be cultured from the oral cavity. These microorganisms in the mouth can translocate and colonize the lung, resulting in ventilator-associated pneumonia. The importance of oral care in the intensive care unit has been noted in the literature, but little research is available on mechanical or pharmacological approaches to reducing oral microbial flora via oral care in critically ill adults. Most research in oral care has been directed toward patients’ comfort; the microbiological and physiological effects of tooth brushing in the intensive care unit have not been reported. Although 2 studies indicated reductions in rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia in cardiac surgery patients who received chlorhexidine before intubation and postoperatively, the effects of chlorhexidine in reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia in other populations of critically ill patients or its effect when treatment with the agent initiated after intubation have not been reported. In addition, no evaluation of the effectiveness of pharmacological and mechanical interventions relative to each other or in combination has been published. Additional studies are needed to develop and test best practices for oral care in critically ill patients.