Search

To develop and begin establishing evidence for validity of an instrument to assess the quality of induction in dogs.Cross-sectional survey and video scoring.A total of 51 veterinary anesthesia personnel, four board-certified anesthesiologists and videos of induction of anesthesia in 18 dogs.In Part 1, an online survey was sent to veterinary anesthesia personnel to solicit expressions and words that they associate with induction of anesthesia. These expressions were evaluated by four anesthesiologists to create a composite scale (Auburn Induction Scale). In Part 2, 18 videos were reviewed by the same four anesthesiologists on two separate occasions. The videos were scored using the Auburn Induction Scale, a simple descriptive scale (SDS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was measured using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Significance was set at p0.05.The survey yielded 51 responses that were condensed into 133 expressions. The four anesthesiologists created 18 items incorporating the 133 expressions. The mean ± standard deviation intra-rater reliability ICC was 0.81 ± 0.08 for the Auburn Induction Scale, 0.71 ± 0.02 for the SDS and 0.71 ± 0.08 for the VAS for all raters. The mean ± standard deviation inter-rater reliability ICC was 0.69 ± 0.04 for the Auburn Induction Scale, 0.61 ± 0.05 for the SDS and 0.60 ± 0.06 for the VAS.In a research setting, widespread use of this scale may be helpful in increasing the accuracy of data and improving agreement between studies assessing induction of anesthesia in dogs. The results of this study have yielded a composite scale that is more reliable between and among raters than a unidimensional scale.

Objective To compare, describe and assess the level of validation of all instruments measuring quality of induction and recovery from anesthesia in dogs. Databases used A search was performed using the electronic database PubMed to find articles containing an induction quality scale, a recovery quality scale or both in dogs. Articles not directly accessible through PubMed were obtained through the Auburn University Library website and Google Scholar. The phrases ‘induction scoring systems dogs’, ‘recovery scoring systems dogs’, ‘anesthetic induction score dogs’, and ‘anesthetic recovery score dogs’ were used for searches using the ‘best match search’ function. The time frame searched was from 1980 to May 2020. The search was conducted from March 2020 to May 2020. Conclusions A thoroughly tested and validated scale for measuring the quality of induction and recovery does not exist in the current veterinary literature. A large disagreement exists between studies on the use of induction and recovery scales, and many have reported inconsistent results with current instruments. It is recommended that an induction and recovery scale intended for wide-scale use be constructed and tested extensively for psychometric validation and reliability.