Aim: To compare two different consciousness assessment tools used in intensive care units.
Materials and Methods: The prospective observational study was conducted with a total of 29 patients who were followed up in intensive care units. GCS and FOUR scores and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of the patients who were monitored by the same observer for 10 days in the intensive care units were measured and recorded. Mean±standard deviation was used for the values regarding total scale score means. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used for comparing total score means.
Results: GCS and FOUR scores and the mean total mRS scored of the patients on the first day were 6.95±2.25 (range, 3-11), 8.65±2.45 (range, 4-13), and 4.93±0.25 (range, 4-5) respectively. The mean total scale scores on the 10th day were 6.62±3.27 (range, 3-12), 8.13±3.44 (range, 4-13), and 4.89±0.30 (range, 4-5). A statistically significant high-degree relationship was found between the mean total scores of the patients' GCS and FOUR scores (p<0.001).
Conclusion: FOUR can be confidently used instead of GCS for the assessment of consciousness. Comparisons of GCS and FOUR score should be conducted with different patient groups and larger samples. Differences between observers should also be evaluated when comparing the scoring systems.
consciousness assessment, Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, follow-up, nursing