1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care
  4. Volume 2025, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2025, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1999-7086
  • EISSN: 1999-7094

Abstract

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has been a prominent tool for assessing the severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) since its inception in 1974 and continues to be regarded as the gold standard. Research indicates that ambiguous interpretations of terminology may lead to inaccurate patient’s inter-user scoring. The GCS-P (Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils) tool was introduced in 2018, yet it has not been tested in prehospital settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of scores reported by paramedics using the traditional GCS tool compared to those using the revised GCS-P tool. In addition, the study aimed to evaluate the perceived ease of use of these tools among paramedics in Qatar.

This quantitative study focused on comparing the scores given by two groups of paramedics who were randomly assigned to use one of the two GCS tools while assessing two video scenarios depicting TBI. The participants ( = 202) were randomly divided into groups: one using the traditional GCS tool ( = 115) and the other using the revised GCS-P tool ( = 87) to assess TBI video scenarios with simulated patients. Data collection was conducted through online questionnaires, with the GCS-P group receiving additional information on pupil reactivity score (PRS). Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.

A total of 202 paramedics participated in this study. In scenario 1, 40.9% of GCS users and 21.8% of GCS-P users accurately assessed the patient’s condition. In scenario 2, correct assessments were made by 68.7% of GCS users and 17.2% of GCS-P users. Only 30.4% of GCS users and 8% of GCS-P users were able to correctly assess both scenarios. Despite the lower accuracy rates, 99.1% of GCS users and 92% of GCS-P users reported that their respective tools were easy to use. Among the GCS-P users, 65.5% were familiar with the tool, and 88.5% expressed a preference for a simplified calculation method that involved subtracting unreactive pupils from the total GCS score.

The results show that the GCS tool yielded more accurate scores than the GCS-P tool. Enhancing the GCS-P training or revising the GCS-P tool could improve its reliability.

© 2025 Jacobs, Schlechter, Niemann, Grobbelaar, Gangaramy, Farhat, et al., licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2025.8
2025-02-26
2025-03-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jemtac/2025/1/jemtac.2025.8.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2025.8&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: A practical scale. Lancet. 1974Jul13; 2:(7872):81–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Middleton PM. Practical use of the Glasgow Coma Scale; a comprehensive narrative review of GCS methodology. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2012Aug; 15:(3):170–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aenj.2012.06.002
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Teasdale G. Forty years on: Updating the Glasgow Coma Scale. Nursing Times. 2014; 110:(42):12–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Teasdale G, Maas A, Lecky F, Manley G, Stocchetti N, Murray G. The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: Standing the test of time. Lancet Neurol. 2014Aug; 13:(8):844–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Okamura K. Glasgow Coma Scale flow chart: A beginner’s guide. Br J Nurs. 2014Nov; 23:(20):1068–73. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2014.23.20.1068
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Shah Y, Alinier G, Pillay Y. Clinical handover between paramedics and emergency department staff: SBAR and IMIST-AMBO acronyms. Int Paramed Pract. 2016Jun21; 6:(2):37–44. https://doi.org/10.12968/ippr.2016.6.2.37
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan PM, Murray GD, Teasdale GM. Simplifying the use of prognostic information in traumatic brain injury. Part 1: The GCS-Pupils score: An extended index of clinical severity. J Neurosurg. 2018Jun; 128:(6):1612–20. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.12.JNS172780
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Green SM, Haukoos JS, Schriger DL. How to measure the Glasgow coma scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2017Aug; 70:(2):158–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.12.016
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Reith FC, Brennan PM, Maas AI, Teasdale GM. Lack of standardization in the use of the Glasgow Coma Scale: Results of international surveys. J Neurotrauma. 2016Jan1; 33:(1):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2014.3843
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Reith FCM, Lingsma HF, Gabbe BJ, Lecky FE, Roberts I, Maas AI. Differential effects of the Glasgow Coma Scale Score and its components: An analysis of 54,069 patients with traumatic brain injury. Injury. 2017Sep; 48:(9):1932–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.05.038
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Waterhouse C. The Glasgow Coma Scale Pupils score: A nurse’s perspective. Br J Neurosci Nurs. 2020Apr; 16:(2):89–92. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjnn.2020.16.2.89
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Olson DM, Stutzman S, Saju C, Wilson M, Zhao W, Aiyagari V. Interrater reliability of pupillary assessments. Neurocrit Care. 2016Apr; 24:(2):251–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-015-0182-1
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Agrawal N, Iyer SS, Patil V, Kulkarni S, Shah JN, Jedge P. Comparison of admission GCS score to admission GCS-P and FOUR scores for prediction of outcomes among patients with traumatic brain injury in the intensive care unit in India. Acute Crit Care. 2023May; 38:(2):226–33. https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.00570
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Demir S, Tunçbilek Z, Alinier G. Prehospital emergency health services in Qatar. J Paramed Pract. 2022Nov23; 14:(11):456–62. https://doi.org/10.12968/jpar.2022.14.11.456
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gangaram P, Alinier G, Menacho AM. Crisis resource management in emergency medical settings in Qatar. Int Paramed Pract. 2017Aug18; 7:(2):18–23. https://doi.org/10.12968/ippr.2017.7.2.18
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ambesi V, Miller C, Fitzgerald MC, Mitra B. The GCS-Pupils (GCS-P) score to assess outcomes after traumatic brain injury: A retrospective study. Br J Neurosurg. 2024Jan 23:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2023.2301071
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mahajan C, Sengupta D, Kapoor I, Prabhakar H, Kumar V, Purohit S, et al. Evaluation of the GC S-Pupils Score for PrOgnosis in trauMatic brAin injury – The COMA study. Brain Inj. 2023Jul29; 37:(9):1041–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2023.2227943
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kurniawan R, Endrian M, Irpan A, Nurapandi A, Noviati E, editors. Intensive Care Unit nursing competence assessing awareness with GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) techniques. 1st International Conference on Science, Health, Economics, Education and Technology (ICoSHEET 2019). Atlantis Press; 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Vreeburg RJG, van Leeuwen FD, Manley GT, Yue JK, Brennan PM, Sun X, et al. Validation of the GCS-Pupil scale in Traumatic Brain Injury Incremental prognostic performance of pupillary reactivity with GCS in the prospective observational cohorts CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI. J Neurotrauma. 2024Dec17. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2024.0458
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bertotti MM, Martins ET, Areas FZ, Vascouto HD, Rangel NB, Melo HM, et al. Glasgow Coma Scale pupil score (GCS-P) and the hospital mortality in severe traumatic brain injury: Analysis of 1,066 Brazilian patients. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2023May; 81:(5):452–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768671
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Heydari F, Azizkhani R, Ahmadi O, Majidinejad S, Nasr-Esfahani M, Ahmadi A. Physiologic scoring systems versus Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting in-hospital mortality of trauma patients; a diagnostic accuracy study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2021Sep23; 9:(1):e64. https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v9i1.1376
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lammers DT, Marenco CW, Do WS, Conner JR, Horton JD, Martin MJ, et al. Pediatric adjusted reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale as a prospective predictor for mortality in pediatric trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021Jan1; 90:(1):21–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000002946
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Demir S, Tunçbilek Z, Naidoo V, Morris T, Alinier G. Paramedic education in Qatar as seen by academics from Turkey. Int Paramed Pract. 2023Feb25; 13:(1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.12968/ippr.2023.13.1.2
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2025.8
Loading
Paramedic measurement of GCS versus GCS-P in Qatar
Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care 2025, 8 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5339/jemtac.2025.8
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2025.8
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2025.8
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Glasgow Coma Scale, paramedic, patient assessment and pupil reactivity score

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error