Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 211–218 | Cite as

Interrater variability in ASA physical status assignment: an analysis in the pediatric cancer setting

  • Luis E. Tollinche
  • Gloria Yang
  • Kay-See Tan
  • Ruth Borchardt
Original Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status is a universal classification system that helps clinicians to categorize their patients preoperatively. However, there is a lack of both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability among clinicians for the ASA physical status classification. Our study focuses on testing these reliabilities within pediatric anesthesia providers in the cancer setting.

Methods

In our retrospective observational study, a total of 1177 anesthesia records were reviewed. The cohort included all pediatric patients (≤ 18 years old) diagnosed with either retinoblastoma or neuroblastoma who had two or more anesthesia procedure within a 14-day time period.

Results

Overall, the ASA physical status score among two different anesthesia providers for the same patient treated at different times had very little inter-rater reliability, κ = − 0.042 (95% CI − 0.17; 0.09). Of the 1177-patient anesthesia records, only 25% had two or more ASA physical status score assigned by the same anesthesiologist within a 14-day time period. There was moderate intra-rater reliability κ = 0.48 (95% CI 0.29; 0.68) for patients who were assigned an ASA physical status score by the identical anesthesia provider at different times points within a 14 day period.

Conclusion

In contrast to observations in earlier studies, findings indicate poor agreement in inter-rater reliability. Although there was moderate agreement in intra-rater reliability, one would expect to find stronger, even perfect, intra-rater reliability. These findings suggest the need to develop a specific physical status classification system directed toward patients with a systemic illness such as cancer in both young and adult patients.

Keywords

ASA physical status Reliability Pediatric Cancer 

Notes

Author contributions

LT, GY, K-ST, RB: (all authors) were: 1—substantial contributors to the conception of the manuscript, 2—active participants in the drafting and revising of the manuscript, 3—approved of final version of manuscript, 4—agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

EQUATOR guidelines

This manuscript adheres to the applicable EQUATOR guidelines PRISMA-P.

References

  1. 1.
    Daabiss M. American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(2):111–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgoyne LL, Smeltzer MP, Pereiras LA, Norris AL, De Armendi AJ. How well do pediatric anesthesiologists agree when assigning ASA physical status classifications to their patients? Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17(10):956–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ranta S, Hynynen M, Tammisto T. A survey of the ASA physical status classification: significant variation in allocation among Finnish anaesthesiologists. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41(5):629–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riley R, Holman C, Fletcher D. Inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status classification in a sample of anaesthetists in Western Australia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014;42(5):614–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mak PH, Campbell RC, Irwin MG, American Society of A. The ASA physical status classification: inter-observer consistency. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30(5):633–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ringdal KG, Skaga NO, Steen PA, Hestnes M, Laake P, Jones JM, Lossius HM. Classification of comorbidity in trauma: the reliability of pre-injury ASA physical status classification. Injury. 2013;44(1):29–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ihejirika RC, Thakore RV, Sathiyakumar V, Ehrenfeld JM, Obremskey WT, Sethi MK. An assessment of the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status score in the orthopaedic trauma population. Injury. 2015;46(4):542–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sankar A, Johnson SR, Beattie WS, Tait G, Wijeysundera DN. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(3):424–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurwitz EE, Simon M, Vinta SR, Zehm CF, Shabot SM, Minhajuddin A, Abouleish AE. Adding examples to the ASA-physical status classification improves correct assignment to patients. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(4):614–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodhart IM, Andrzejowski JC, Jones GL, Berthoud M, Dennis A, Mills GH. Patient-completed, preoperative web-based anaesthetic assessment. Eur J Anesthesiology (EJA). 2017;34(4):221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sweitzer B. Three wise men (× 2) and the ASA-physical status classification system. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(4):577–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacqueline R, Malviya S, Burke C, Reynolds P. An assessment of interrater reliability of the ASA physical status classification in pediatric surgical patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16(9):928–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aplin S, Baines D, De Lima J. Use of the ASA physical status grading system in pediatric practice. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17(3):216–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reed JF 3rd. Homogeneity of kappa statistics in multiple samples. Comput Methods Progr Biomed. 2000;63(1):43–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nasr VG, DiNardo JA, Faraoni D. Development of a pediatric risk assessment score to predict perioperative mortality in children undergoing noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2017;124(5):1514–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faraoni D, Vo D, Nasr VG, DiNardo JA. Development and validation of a risk stratification score for children with congenital heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2016;123(4):824–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care MedicineMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations