Sleep assessment tools critical care

Although there are some similarities between the states of sleep and sedation for example, neurotransmitter pathways involved , there are also significant differences such as the lack of temporal or circadian cycling during sedation [ 2 ]. Despite these differences, a review of polysomnography sleep studies in critical care patients found reports of similar sleep disturbances in sedated and non-sedated populations [ 1 ]. The limitations of conventional sleep staging have been identified as a particular problem in critical care patients who demonstrate significantly disrupted sleep phases with complex electrophysiological changes [ 27 , 37 ].

Status dissociaticus represents a significant breakdown in the clinical and polysomnographic markers of the three states of being that is, REM sleep, NREM sleep, and wakefulness [ 49 ]. It is possible that the combination of sleep disturbances and polypharmacy experienced by many critical care patients predisposes to this form of REM sleep behavioural disorder, which shares symptoms similar to delirium [ 50 ].

Studies published on the use of polysomnography in critical care patients tend to be very small, with only 1 out of 23 being completed in more than 25 critical care patients published as three reports [ 11 , 26 , 29 ] and the vast majority examining between 15 and 20 patients.

In fact, only three polysomnography studies identified have examined the effect of an intervention [ 6 , 26 , 33 ]. The first large randomised controlled trial in 69 patients investigated back massage compared to standard nursing care [ 26 ] and suggested increased sleep quantity in the intervention group.

A randomised crossover trial of 11 medical patients reported significant differences in the number of arousals and awakenings between pressure-support and assist-controlled ventilation modes within the same night [ 6 ]. Recently, another randomised crossover study in 13 patients found an increase in the number of nocturnal sleep arousals as a consequence of patient-ventilator dysynchrony [ 33 ]. The study by Bosma and colleagues [ 33 ] highlights the importance of study endpoint, as reduced ventilator dysynchrony improved sleep quality but had no effect on nocturnal sleep quantity.

Due to the known inter- and intra-patient variability in sleep, we are less clear as to the full benefits that might be observed if multiple nights were studied. In fact, less than half of the critical care studies reported multiple nights' data. Given the loss of the circadian rhythm of the sleep-wake cycle, continuous monitoring of sleep in these patients is important [ 15 ]. When the full 24 hours is considered, critical care patients may not have reduced total sleep time [ 1 ].

Five of the polysomnography studies [ 15 , 16 , 19 , 24 , 28 ] undertook continuous monitoring for 48 hours; only three studies [ 14 , 15 , 19 ] examined periods greater than this, totalling no more than 15 patients.

Seven studies were undertaken in a single isolation room within the critical care unit [ 11 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 29 ] and may therefore be of limited applicability to general critical care practice. In light of these studies, it is a significant challenge to design research studies examining the full effects of sleep interventions over multiple days, identifying appropriate endpoints and in a relatively large number of patients.

Polysomnography is currently the definitive sleep monitoring technique, but it may not meet all our requirements for sleep research in critical care patients. A number of processed EEG monitoring devices have been developed for monitoring sedation in the anaesthesia and critical care environments. Of these, the BIS is the most studied for the measurement of sleep. Multivariate statistical modelling of these key EEG factors was used to define an algorithm providing a scaled BIS value index , which correlated with clinical depth of anaesthesia in volunteers.

Studies of sleep using the BIS demonstrate that the BIS values fall during physiological sleep and rise during arousal but that there is significant overlap of values for a given sleep stage [ 9 , 51 , 52 ]. One group progressed to use BIS to investigate sleep in critical care patients [ 37 ]. The study confirmed polysomnography findings that almost none of the intensive care patients displayed normal sleep.

The sleep that did occur was reduced in quantity and that abnormal cyclical sleep occurred in approximately half of the patients studied [ 37 ].

BIS has been demonstrated to correlate with neurological status in non-sedated critically ill patients [ 53 ]. In patients with better neurological function, BIS values were higher.

Therefore, neurological abnormalities for example, traumatic brain injury would be expected to reduce BIS values and therefore potentially provide an inaccurate indication of the patients' sleep characteristics. Also in studies of patients with dementia [ 54 ] and delirium [ 55 ], there is a decrease in fast-wave activity in the EEG and BIS values are reduced. An advantage of BIS quantification of sleep versus polysomnography is that a technician does not need to be in attendance to ensure good recording.

However, there are still potential problems with the practical application of BIS for this indication. Patient removal of the sensor remains a risk, although unlike polysom-nography electrodes, the sensor does not require a skilled technician to replace it. Three patients had insufficient SQIs that resulted in the loss of more than 2 hours of data and were excluded from analysis. Patient removal, refusal, and hardware failure also accounted for data loss on some nights.

A recent review concluded that the BIS is capable of detecting sleep, but the spread of overlap of BIS values for a given sleep stage prevents its current use as a depth-of-sleep monitor [ 56 ].

Nevertheless, it remains an attractive proposition as the continuous monitoring capabilities of BIS ultimately may better capture the dynamics of sleep [ 56 ]. It must be highlighted that algorithm developments for the BIS have been based primarily on depth of sedation in patients undergoing general anaesthesia.

As previously noted, there are some similarities between sleep and sedation states, but also important differences [ 2 ]. Therefore, substantial algorithm development specifically in sleep monitoring is required before it can be used routinely in research studies for this purpose.

An actigraph is a small wristwatch device that is capable of both sensing and storing information regarding patient movement. An accelerometer detects movement in two or three planes, which are then translated into digital counts during predefined epoch periods. The epoch length is the period of time over which the actigraphy data are averaged. The actigraph is capable of collecting data over extended periods before data are downloaded into a personal computer.

Computer software based on validated algorithms translates the movement data into sleep-wake periods, which then can be analysed to provide data on various parameters such as the total sleep time, number and frequency of awakenings, and SEI. A variety of commercial products exist as do the accompanying algorithms. Developments in actigraph hardware and software led the American Academy of Sleep Medicine to acknowledge its merit in measuring sleep variability over multiple nights and the efficacy of various interventions in insomniacs [ 58 ].

In healthy individuals, actigraphy is more accurate in recording total sleep time compared to subjective sleep assessment [ 59 ]. However, actigraphy still overestimates total sleep time compared to polysomnography, as it has a high sensitivity for detecting sleep, but is less reliable in detecting wakefulness that is, reduced sleep specificity [ 59 ].

That actigraphy overestimates total sleep time is not unexpected as it commences at an earlier phase of the sleep-onset process compared to polysomnography [ 60 ].

Compared to polysomnography, there are relatively few studies of sleep in critical care patients using actigraphy. In common with polysomnography studies, one report found that sleep was fragmented and limited to short periods of naps throughout the 24 hours [ 34 ].

Actigraphy also has been used to monitor the effects of a pharmacological intervention on the sleep characteristics of intensive care patients [ 35 ]. No studies have compared actigraphy versus polysomnography in measuring sleep quantity in critical care patients. It seems reasonable to expect that technology that detects movement and uses a predefined algorithm to convert into various sleep parameters may be less accurate in critical care patients. In fact, intensive care-acquired abnormalities of the neuromuscular system are associated with sepsis, certain drugs such as steroids [ 61 ], neuromuscular blockers, and severity of illness.

Although these abnormalities may affect nerves, muscles, or both, myopathy is probably the most important problem. The incidence of mild or moderate weakness was far higher. Though limited, our grip strength data provided an estimate of the degree of neuromuscular weakness experienced by the critical care patients we studied. Hence, there is a significant risk that actigraphy will overestimate sleep quantity variables in the critical care population.

We therefore conclude that actigraphy should not be used with currently available technology to measure sleep in this population. However, actigraphy is particularly suited to patient rest-activity rhythm monitoring in this environment over protracted periods of time [ 59 , 70 ], where we are interested primarily in movement timing as opposed to amplitude. Compared to polysomnography studies, reports of sleep assessment in critical care patients using subjective methods have evaluated much larger patient numbers, over more prolonged periods, and studied more interventions.

In clinical practice, they offer the only real means of assessing the efficacy of interventions in attempting to improve individual patients' sleep. Using the patients' own assessment of their sleep during their critical care stay is attractive because the patient is best placed to be able to relate their chronic sleep quality and quantity with their acute illness. Indeed, sleep diaries are an important measure of many chronic sleep disturbances and their use in combination with actigraphy provides an assessment of sleep comparable to polysomnography [ 59 ].

However, the use of sleep diaries in critically ill patients is limited by the cognitive and physical capabilities of the patient. For these reasons, sleep diaries have not been adopted for critical care assessment of sleep and other measures of subjective sleep such as those based on visual analogue scales VASs have been developed.

These cover the sleep domains of depth, latency, awakenings, percentage time awake, and quality of sleep. Patient sleep perception has been used as the endpoint in three interventional studies in critical care patients [ 40 , 41 , 45 ].

Patients in a critical care area who received nocturnal ocean sounds white noise rated their sleep by the RCSQ significantly better than those exposed to ambient sounds [ 40 ]. A comparison of overnight midazolam or propofol sedation reported no significant differences in sleep quality between the agents using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [ 41 ]. A combination of a relaxation and guided imagery intervention did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit on critical care patients' self-report of sleep quality [ 45 ].

Also, some patients struggle to use VASs [ 71 ] and verbal descriptions have been adopted in another assessment of patients' sleep for this reason [ 43 ]. In our intervention study, we found that patient perception of sleep grossly differed from SEI by any other measures even when we excluded patients deemed unable to complete the RCSQ. Patient assessment of sleep did not agree well with direct nurse observations either, which is in line with the findings of a previous report [ 38 ].

Patient sleep misperception is encountered in chronic insomniacs, and even non-delirious critical care patients may be particularly prone to perceptual difficulties due to memory problems. The complex pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the sedative drug regimes these patients receive, in tandem with multiple organ failure, have the potential to adversely affect patient assessment.

Critical care patients may have memory problems as a direct consequence of sedative exposure [ 72 ], and even in patients with memories, these may be delusional [ 72 , 73 ]. Interestingly, memory processing appears to be sleep-dependent [ 74 ] and therefore critical care patients with their documented sleep disturbances may be particularly vulnerable to poor recall of their own sleep quality and quantity.

Furthermore, patients may lack time cues for day and night and therefore struggle to identify when they actually slept. Finally, the circadian rhythm abnormalities these patients exhibit may further compound their difficulties in subjectively assessing their own nocturnal sleep. Although patient assessment of sleep has been recommended [ 7 ], caution is required to exclude patients with acute cognitive dysfunction and obvious perceptual problems.

This limits the application of tools such as the RCSQ in a significant number of critical care patients. Nurse assessment of a patient's sleep is often the trigger used to identify patients with significant sleep disturbances in the clinical environment.

Research studies in critical care have used direct nurse observation as well as a variety of scales and questionnaires. The frequency of sleep recording by direct observation has ranged from every 5 minutes to 8 times per day. Direct nurse observation has been used to assess sleep in two intervention studies [ 42 , 46 ].

During periods of reduced environmental noise and disturbances, patients were reported to have increased sleep quantity [ 42 ]. In the other study, exogenous melatonin was reported to have no effect on nocturnal or diurnal total sleep time [ 46 ]. Another study found that even at 5-minute intervals, nursing staff observation of total sleep time was significantly different compared to polysomnography and provided an overestimate [ 19 ].

In our study, we also found that direct nurse observation overestimated sleep efficiency in patients compared to BIS results. It is therefore possible that studies that purely rely on direct nurse observation may not be sensitive enough to detect some changes in sleep quantity due to a given intervention. In regard to the comparison of nurse assessment with patient RCSQ, there was no evidence of a tendency toward either overestimation or underestimation, but the agreement was poor Figures 1d and 2d.

Hourly sleep assessment by nurse observation forms part of our critical care unit's routine nocturnal observations.

However, the reality of other direct and indirect nursing care activities will obviously affect the reliability of results. Due to frequent awakenings in these patients particularly in those receiving mechanical ventilation , intensive observation is probably required for precise recording of sleep quantity [ 21 ].

Also, as emphasised by our missing data, there are occasions when the nursing staff experience difficulties in judging the patients' sleep status. Having the nursing staff use a sleep assessment tool such as the RCSQ may well be a better indicator of sleep parameters than purely relying on approximations of sleep quantity. In a study in which RCSQ was used by both patients and nurses, nurses have been shown to rate the RCSQ slightly higher than patients do, but the difference was not statistically significant, although comparison was made in only 13 patients [ 44 ].

The coefficient for reliability Cronbach's alpha for nurses using the RCSQ has been reported to be between 0. Use of the RCSQ by nurses may avoid the common limitations that critical care patients have in undertaking the scale accurately and may improve nurse assessment, but further validation is necessary. A methodological pitfall common to almost all method comparison studies we reviewed relates to the statistical approach used to compare different techniques, and in particular the use of correlation coefficients.

Although in medical literature the correlation coefficient r between the results of two measurement methods is often chosen as a measure of agreement, this approach has been shown to be inappropriate for a number of reasons [ 13 ].

First, r measures the strength of association between two variables and not their agreement. However, it would be very surprising if they were not, given that they are designed to measure the same quantity, so that the statistical significance of their correlation is irrelevant to the question of agreement. Second, large values of r do not necessarily imply high agreement.

As an extreme example, if a method tends to give values that are double those of the other method, the correlation between the measurements by the two methods would be very high but of course the agreement would not. Moreover, correlation depends on the range of the true quantity in the sample, with wide ranges giving greater correlations than narrow ranges, which has nothing to do with whether the true agreement is high or low.

What is the appropriate approach that should be taken when analysing results from method comparison studies on sleep? The answer mainly depends on the nature of the comparison, which can be either of the following:. Comparison of two methods for measuring sleep, neither of which can be regarded as providing the true value that is, both methods provide an approximate measure of sleep. This is the case for the comparisons in our interventional study in which all four techniques were approximate measures of sleep, and the best analytical approach is that based on the limits-of-agreement method as described above.

The calculation of the limits of agreement assumes approximate normal distribution of the differences, which can be assessed graphically by drawing a histogram of the differences. More importantly, this calculation assumes that the mean and SD of the differences are constant that is, do not depend on the magnitude of the measurement, which can be assessed graphically in the Bland-Altman plots.

If indeed a trend is present, alternative methods have to be used [ 76 ]. Comparison of a simpler approximate method with a very precise one, with the aim of assessing whether the two methods agree sufficiently for the simpler method to replace the precise one.

In this case, the nature of the question is calibration of the simpler method against the 'exact' method rather than agreement. Standard regression analysis can be used to predict the measurement obtained by the reference method from the measurement obtained by the simpler method. Polysomnography undoubtedly remains the gold standard for qualifying and quantifying sleep.

However, the critical care environment provides many unique challenges and this has led to the use of alterative sleep assessment methods in research studies. All of these techniques have limitations and these should be anticipated in future interventional study designs.

Of the alternative objective techniques, the BIS has particular advantages over actigraphy in this patient group. Further algorithm development of the BIS as a measure of sleep quantity may be a useful compromise and facilitate larger research studies over multiple days in critical care. Clinically, patient self-assessment is attractive, though potentially misleading, and should be regarded with appropriate caution.

Perhaps nurse assessment using a tool such as the RCSQ provides the most attractive way forward at this time. Clearly, there is room for further developments in the techniques for measuring sleep in the critical care patient. Concurrent assessment of sleep and delirium is particularly important if we are to appropriately guide pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies. The statistical methodology of future method comparison studies for sleep measurement should also be improved, and in particular the use of correlation coefficients should be avoided, in order to provide stronger evidence on the performance of difference methods.

Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in 24 intensive care patients. Patients were randomly assigned to melatonin 10 mg, administered enterally at 9 p. Patients admitted to the adult general intensive care unit with acute respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation and a tracheostomy to assist weaning. Sedative infusions were discontinued for at least 24 hours propofol and alfentanil or more than 36 hours morphine and midazolam with a Sedation Agitation Score SAS of greater than or equal to 4 [ 8 ].

No hypnotics were allowed during the study period; however, haloperidol was administered in patients with an SAS of greater than or equal to 6 very agitated.

Ear plugs and eye masks were made available for use at the patients' discretion each night. A locally derived scale was used to provide details of environmental disturbances, and nurses subjectively ranked the noise level each night.

Staff meetings and posters were employed to encourage staff to minimise environmental, nursing, and clinical disturbances during the nocturnal study periods. Baseline nocturnal illuminance at the head of each patient bed when all lights were off was recorded using a light meter Luxmeter PU; Eagle International, Wembley, UK.

Baseline characteristics of the study population are reported in Table A1. Intensive Care Med , Article PubMed Google Scholar. Sleep , PubMed Google Scholar. Anaesthesia , Crit Care Med , J Clin Monit Comput , J Nurs Meas , 8: Arch Phys Med , Lancet , 1: Br J Surg , In Stress and the Heart. Edited by: Eliot RS. Google Scholar. Hilton BA: Quantity and quality of patients' sleep and sleep-disturbing factors in a respiratory intensive care unit.

J Adv Nurs , 1: Am J Cardiol , Broughton R, Baron R: Sleep patterns in the intensive care unit and on the ward after acute myocardial infarction. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol , Aurell J, Elmqvist D: Sleep in the surgical intensive care unit: continuous polygraphic recording of sleep in nine patients receiving postoperative care. Heart Lung , Fontaine DK: Measurement of nocturnal sleep patterns in trauma patients.

Edwards GB, Schuring LM: Pilot study: validating staff nurses' observations of sleep and wake states among critically ill patients, using polysomnography. Am J Crit Care , 2: A prospective clinical study of the polysomnographic stages of sleep after burn injury. J Burn Care Rehabil , Am J Crit Care , 5: Richards KC: Effect of a back massage and relaxation intervention on sleep in critically ill patients.

Am J Crit Care , 7: Chest , J Cardiovasc Nurs , Clin Neurophysiol , Background: Sleep is important for promoting critical care recovery and sleep disturbance is known to cause irritability, aggression and increased stress levels. The availability and use of valid critical care sleep assessment tools is limited.

Design: A descriptive comparative study using three sleep assessment-rating scales were constructed to provide easy to understand tools for completion by both patients and nurses in critical care.

Methods: Structured interviews were undertaken with 82 patients and 82 nurses using a convenience sample from four multispecialty critical care units in one large teaching trust. Patients were included in the study if they met a list of pre-defined criteria to obtain responses from lucid orientated patients. Results: No tool produced a close association between the nurses' assessment of the patients sleep and the patients' assessment of their sleep.

Patients found two of the three tools easy to use when rating their sleep. Objective invasive measurements of sleep as well as complex subjective tools appear inappropriate to be used as a part of daily critical care practice. The application of simple rating scores has a high degree of error when nurses assess patients' sleep, even though high levels of patient observation and assessment are practiced in critical care.