The ASA physical status classification demonstrated only fair inter-observer consistency among specialist anaesthetists (Kappa 0.21-0.4), with significant differences based on training location (P<0.05).
Cross-Sectional (n=97)
Effect estimate: Kappa 0.21-0.4
p-value: p=<0.05
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system has previously been shown to be inconsistently applied by anaesthetists. One hundred and sixty questionnaires were sent out to all specialist anaesthetists in Hong Kong. Ten hypothetical patients, identical to those of a similar study undertaken 20 years ago, each with different types and degrees ofphysical disability were described. Respondents were asked about their country of training and type of anaesthetic practice and to assign an ASA classification status for each patient. Ninety-seven questionnaires were returned (61%) after two mailings. Agreement for each patient within groups, between groups and overall comparisons were made. Percentage of agreement was between 31 to 85%. Overall correlation was only fair in all groups (Kappa indices: 0.21-0.4). We found that the current pattern of inter-observer inconsistency of classification was similar to that 20 years ago and exaggerated between locally and overseas trained specialists (P<0.05). The validity of the ASA system, its usefulness and the need for a new, more precise scoring system is discussed.
Mak et al. (Tue,) conducted a cross-sectional in Inter-observer consistency of ASA physical status classification (n=97). Questionnaire on ASA classification of 10 hypothetical patients was evaluated on Inter-observer agreement for ASA classification (Kappa 0.21-0.4, p=<0.05). The ASA physical status classification demonstrated only fair inter-observer consistency among specialist anaesthetists (Kappa 0.21-0.4), with significant differences based on training location (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: