• Nail Caglar Temiz, Gulsah Kose, Ozkan Tehli, Cengizhan Acikel, and Sevgi Hatipoglu.
• University of Health Sciences, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, Ankara, Turkey.
• Turk Neurosurg. 2018 Jan 1; 28 (2): 248-250.

AimTo evaluate the effectiveness and the use of Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score by nurses in the follow-up and evaluation of patients admitted to the neurosurgical intensive care unit for cranial surgery or head trauma.Material And MethodsThe study was performed at a neurosurgical intensive care unit. Sample size was determined as 47 patients (a= 0.05, power= 0.95). The correlation coefficient less than 0.5 was accepted as weak. In the first 24 hours, Karnofsky Performance Scale was applied and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score calculated for patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit for cranial surgery or head trauma. Also FOUR and GCS were applied by two different nurses twice a day. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, Pearson Correlation and Cronbach?s Alpha Security Index analyses were used to evaluate the data.ResultsConcordance was above 0.810 and correlation was above 0.837 between GCS and FOUR score evaluation results of nurses. Correlation of two different evaluation at every shift for GCS was 0.887, and for FOUR was 0.827 and above. Karnofsky Performance Scale correlation with FOUR and GCS scores of patients at admission and discharge from the intensive care unit was 0.709 and above. The correlation between APACHE II and FOUR was 0.851; between APACHE II and GCS 0.853. There was no difference between the evaluations of two scores and two nurses statistically.ConclusionConcordance between nurses was found high both for GCS and FOUR. The FOUR score is as effective as GCS on the follow-up of patients who are managed in the neurosurgical intensive care units.

20 keywords...

hide…