Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026

SECONDs Administration Guidelines: A Fast Tool to Assess Consciousness in Brain-injured Patients
Published on: February 6, 2021
A pediatric FOUR score coma scale: interrater reliability and predictive validity
Brianna L Czaikowski1, Hong Liang, C Todd Stewart
1Questions or comments about this article may be directed to Brianna L. Czaikowski, RN, at czaikowski.brianna@ministryhealth.org. She is a Registered Nurse in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Ministry St. Joseph's Hospital, Marshfield, WI. Hong Liang, PhD, is a Biostatistician in the Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI. C. Todd Stewart, MD, was the Vice President and a Pediatric Intensivist at Marshfield Clinic/Ministry St. Joseph's Hospital, Marshfield, WI.
Insights
The Pediatric FOUR Score Scale (PFSS) shows excellent reliability for assessing critically ill children, including those sedated or intubated. While not significantly different from the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the PFSS offers potential for improved neurological assessment in this population.
Area of Science:
- Neurology
- Pediatric Critical Care
Background:
- The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score is a validated coma scale for adults and children.
- Existing scales like the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) have limitations in assessing intubated or sedated pediatric patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To modify and evaluate the FOUR Score Scale for pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients, aiming for enhanced neurological assessment.
- To compare the performance of the modified Pediatric FOUR Score Scale (PFSS) against the GCS and Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC).
Main Methods:
- Experienced PICU nurses were trained as expert raters.
- Subjects were assessed using the PFSS, GCS, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale at three time points.
- Data were compared with PCPC assessments.
Main Results:
- The PFSS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability among trained nurse-raters.
- The PFSS showed strong correlation with the PCPC for predicting poor outcomes and in-hospital mortality.
- No statistically significant differences were found between the PFSS and GCS in this study.
Conclusions:
- The PFSS is a reliable tool for assessing neurological status in critically ill pediatric patients, including those who are intubated and/or sedated.
- While not statistically superior to the GCS, the PFSS holds potential for providing more comprehensive neurological assessment in specific pediatric populations.
Abstract:
The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score is a coma scale that consists of four components (eye and motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration). It was originally validated among the adult population and recently in a pediatric population. To enhance clinical assessment of pediatric intensive care unit patients, including those intubated and/or sedated, at our children's hospital, we modified the FOUR Score Scale for this population. This modified scale would provide many of the same advantages as the original, such as interrater reliability, simplicity, and elimination of the verbal component that is not compatible with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), creating a more valuable neurological assessment tool for the nursing community. Our goal was to potentially provide greater information than the formally used GCS when assessing critically ill, neurologically impaired patients, including those sedated and/or intubated. Experienced pediatric intensive care unit nurses were trained as "expert raters." Two different nurses assessed each subject using the Pediatric FOUR Score Scale (PFSS), GCS, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale at three different time points. Data were compared with the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) assessed by another nurse. Our hypothesis was that the PFSS and PCPC should highly correlate and the GCS and PCPC should correlate lower. Study results show that the PFSS is excellent for interrater reliability for trained nurse-rater pairs and prediction of poor outcome and in-hospital mortality, under various situations, but there were no statistically significant differences between the PFSS and the GCS. However, the PFSS does have the potential to provide greater neurological assessment in the intubated and/or sedated patient based on the outcomes of our study.

