Introduction:Providing for patients' comfort and reducing their pain is one of the important tasks of health care professionals in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The current study was conducted to determine the effect of a protocol using a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) on some clinical outcomes of patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) in 2017. Methods:This single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 79 traumatic patients in the ICU who were randomly allocated into the intervention (N=40) and the control groups (N=39). The sedation was achieved, using a sedation protocol in the intervention group and the routine care in the control group. The clinical outcomes of the patients (duration of MV, length of staying in ICU, final outcome) were measured. As the participants had different lengths of MV and staying in ICU, the data were restructured, and were analyzed, using proper statistical methods. Results:The patients' level of sedation in the intervention group was significantly closer to the ideal score of RASS (-1 to +1). The duration of MV was significantly reduced in the intervention group, and the length of stay in the ICU was also significantly shorter. There was no difference in terms of final outcome. The ICU cost in the control group was twice as high as the cost in of the intervention group. Conclusion:The applied sedation protocol in this study would provide better sedation and could consequently lead to significantly better clinical outcomes, and the cost of caring as a result.Citation: Taran Z, Namadian M, Faghihzadeh S, Naghibi T. The effect of sedation protocol using Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) on some clinical outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units.

Background: The use of analgesics and sedatives to provide sedation for Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is inevitable. The present study aimed to determine the effect of sedation protocol using the Richmond Agitation- Sedation Scale on sedation level and amount of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on patients under mechanical ventilation. Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 79 patients under mechanical ventilation in Zanjan. The patients were recruited using the blocking randomized sampling method. In the experiment group, the sedation was provided hourly, using the Richmond sedation Protocol, during the mechanical ventilation period. The level of sedation and pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions were compared in the two groups using Fisher exact test. Results: Totally, 40 patients in the experiment and 39 patients in the control groups were evaluated. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of confounding variables (age, sex, level of consciousness, Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II criterion, underlying disease, and cause of hospitalization). The level of sedation in the experiment group was significantly closer to the ideal score of the Richmond Scale compared to the control group (p < 0.001). The experimental group received significantly more non-pharmacological interventions and fewer pharmacological interventions compared to the control group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Using a sedation protocol could provide better sedation levels in patients under mechanical ventilation, and reduce the use of sedative medications, and consequently, the cost of hospitalization. Further research is suggested.