ASSESSING STROKE – SCORES & SCALES

AUTHORS:
JULIE FUSSNER, BSN, RN, CPHQ, SCRN
CESAR VELASCO, RN
1

DISCLOSURES

JULIE FUSSNER – I have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this

presentation.

CESAR VELASCO – I have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this

presentation.

1
 OBJECTIVES

STROKE SCALES
• Discuss the most current, relevant scoring systems and scales being used for the stroke
population
• Identify the strengths, limitations, and application of these scales
• Recognize each scoring system and scale property that is important and relevant to all
assessment tools

WHY ARE SCORING SYSTEMS AND SCALES USED?

Assess the impact of therapeutic interventions in research

Aids in improving diagnostic accuracy

Helps determine clinical pathways of treatment

Severity measurement

Handoff Communication

Assists in predicting and evaluating a patient’s clinical outcome

A “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” APPROACH DOES NOT APPLY TO STROKE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT.

2
 SCORING SYSTEMS AND SCALES
PREHOSPITAL STROKE ASSESSMENT SCALES

• Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS)

• Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Scale (LAPSS) OUTCOME ASSESSMENT SCALES
• Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation Scale • Barthel Index
(RACE)
• Glasgow Outcome Scale

ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

• Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)
OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING TEST
• NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) • Hachinski Ischaemia Score
• Modified NIHSS scale • Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression
• Intracerebral Hemorrhage Scale (ICH) • PHQ2 and PHQ9 for Depression

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCALES

• Berg Balance Scale
5 • Modified Rankin Scale (mRS)

DEFINITIONS
SENSITIVITY
• Sensitivity also called the true positive rate measures the proportion of
actual positives that are correctly identified
• Refers to a test's ability to designate an individual with disease as
positive.
• A highly sensitive test means that there are few false negative results,
and thus fewer cases of disease are missed.

SPECIFICITY
• Specificity also called the true negative rate measures the proportion
of actual negatives that are correctly identified
• The percentage of healthy people who are correctly identified as not
having the condition
6
• Specificity avoids false positives

3
 PREHOSPITAL STROKE ASSESSMENT SCALES

CINCINNATI PREHOSPITAL STROKE SCALE (CPSS)

• Identifies facial paresis, arm drift, and abnormal speech.

• 80% of stroke patients will exhibit one or more of these symptoms.

• However, it has the same limitations for certain stroke-related

deficits that can occur in isolation. Does not identify posterior
circulation strokes

• Strength: Quick and easy for EMS to use

4
 PREHOSPITAL STROKE ASSESSMENT SCALES (CONTINUED)
LOS ANGELES PREHOSPITAL STROKE SCALE (LAPSS)

• Assesses for unilateral deficit facial paresis, hand grip weakness, and arm drift

• Pre-hospital stroke screening criteria:

1. Patient is >45 years of age

2. Has no history of seizure/epilepsy
3. Symptom duration is < 24 hours
4. Patient is not bedridden or wheelchair dependent at baseline
5. Blood glucose is between 60-400 mg/dL.

• Sensitivity = 91% and Specificity = 97%

• Strength: Allows rapid identification while excluding common mimics

• Limitation: Number of items for EMS to complete

10

10

5
 PREHOSPITAL STROKE ASSESSMENT SCALES (CONTINUED)
SEVERITY SCALES FOR LARGE VESSEL OCCLUSION

2018 AHA Guidelines: Uncertainty exists over optimal algorithm and optimal prehospital LVO
screen

• RACE: Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation

“Off hand,
• LAMS: Los Angeles MotorI’d say your
Scale
suffering from an arrow
• FAST-ED: Field Assessment
through your Stroke
head, Triage for Emergency Destination
but just to play it safe,
• CSTAT: Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity Scale
I’m going to conduct
a bunch Neglect
• VAN: Vision, Aphasia, of Assessment
assessments.
• MEND: Miami Emergency Neurologic Deficit

• ROSIER: Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room

11

11

PREHOSPITAL STROKE ASSESSMENT SCALES (CONTINUED)

SEVERITY SCALES FOR LARGE VESSEL OCCLUSION

Why you can’t have a perfect scale:

• Up to 29% of patient with baseline of NIHSS =0 had a proximal occlusion on CTA

• Most scales are subsets of NIHSS scores

• Patients with ICH, post seizure paralysis, hyperglycemia in the field can have high NIHSS

12

12

6
 PREHOSPITAL STROKE ASSESSMENT SCALES (CONTINUED)

RAPID ARTERIAL OCCLUSION EVALUATION SCALE (RACE)

• This tool is based on the items of the NIHSS with the highest
predictive value for large vessel occlusion (LVO).

• Focuses on facial palsy, extremity motor function,

head and gaze deviation, and aphasia or agnosia.

• The RACE scale score range is 0-9 points

• RACE scale score >5 points is associated with detection of a

LVO

• RACE has as a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 68%

13

13

RAPID ARTERIAL OCCLUSION EVALUATION SCALE (RACE)

ITEM INSTRUCTION SCORE
Facial palsy Ask patient to smile Absent = 0
Mild = 1
Moderate to severe = 2
Arm motor function Extend patient’s arm 90 Normal to mild = 0
degrees if sitting; 45 degrees if Moderate = 1
supine Severe = 2
Leg motor function Extend patient’s leg 30 Normal to mild = 0
degrees in supine position Moderate = 1
Severe = 2
Head and gaze deviation Observe deviation to one side Absent = 0
Present = 1
Aphasia (right side) Ask patient to close their eyes Normal = 0
and make a fist Moderate = 1
Severe = 2
Agnosia (left side) Ask patient to recognize Normal = 0
familiar objects Moderate = 1
Severe = 2
14

14

7
 ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

GLASGOW COMA SCALE (GCS)

• Identifies ocular, verbal, and motor response to examination

• Tool is used to communicate the level of consciousness (LOC)

of patients with an acute brain injury

• The scale was developed to complement and not replace

assessments of other neurological functions

• Strength: Fast and easy to use

• Limitation: Developed as a trauma scale. Stroke patient with plegic

arm can be scored a 6 on the motor response if they follow
commands

15

15

16

16

8
 ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

17

17

ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE (NIHSS)

• Uses a 11 Item scale to measure neurological impairment

• Originally developed to be a research tool for Alteplase

patients to determine 90 day outcomes

• NIHSS has become the “gold standard” scale in clinical trials

and as part of clinical practice in the United States

• Baseline NIHSS scores are predictive values of an acute stroke

patient’s clinical outcomes

• Quality metric for PSC, TSC and CSC Certifications

• Score what the patient does, not what you think they can do

18

18

9
 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE (NIHSS)

Scoring range is 0-42 points.

The higher the number, the
greater the severity.

Score Stroke Severity

0 No stroke symptoms

1-4 Minor stroke

5-15 Moderate stroke

16-20 Moderate to severe stroke

21-42 Severe stroke

19

19

ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE (NIHSS)

• Strength: Reliable tool to rapidly assess effects of stroke

Medical providers and registered nurses expertly trained in the

use of the scale are proven to have similar levels of accuracy

Further reliability improved through the use of a standard training video

• Limitation: Tool does not capture ALL stroke-related impairments

Unsteady gait, dizziness, or diplopia attributed to

posterior circulation stroke

More complicated with patient in coma, intubated or aphasic

20

20

10
 ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE (NIHSS)

• Limitation: Difference between Left and

Right Stroke scoring

Heavily weighted to Left Stroke: 0-5

points for language

Case Study: Joe, police officer Case Study: Sherry, retired

teacher
Slurred speech, facial droop, right
arm and leg weakness Sudden onset headache,
difficulty walking, nausea
Scoring 4 -10 depending on severity and left field visual cut

Score = 2
21

21

ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE (NIHSS)

• Avoid “Too Good to Treat”

Disability Questions

Will this stroke impact how you perform your regular activities and hobbies?

Will you be able to return to work as normal?

Are you right or left handed?

22

22

11
 ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

MODIFIED NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE

• Shortened, validated version of the NIHSS

Created in 2001, goal of both simplifying the scale, improving its reproducibility
and providing more relevance to each assigned point

1A, 7 and 10 are eliminated, and 3 and 4 are combined

Same correlation with clinical outcomes as the NIHSS but with better interrater
reliability

Performs as well as the original score in predicting patients at high risk of

hemorrhage if given tPA and which patients are likely to have good clinical
outcomes.

23

23

ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES

MODIFIED NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE

• Shortened, validated version of the NIHSS

Per Joint Commission Surveyors: Use validated version, do not create your own
version.

Many organizations use for their basic neuro checks

Need to ensure all presenting symptoms are assessed with each neuro check

24

24

12
 ACUTE ASSESSMENT SCALES
INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE SCALE
(ICH SCORE)
• Uses a 5-item scale

• Predictor of 30 day mortality

• Developed to standardize clinical

grading to improve communication
and consistency between healthcare
providers.

• Sensitivity = 66% in predicting 30 day

mortality

25

25

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCALES

BERG BALANCE SCALE (BBS)

• 14-item scale designed to measure the balance of older patients in the clinical
setting

• Scoring range is 0-4 points. The greater the number, the higher the level of function.
Patient with a score < 55 and history of falls is at a greater risk of falling
41-56 = Independent
Patient with a score < 40 has a 100% risk of falling
21-40 = Walking with assistance

0-20 = Wheelchair bound

• Sensitivity = 91% and Specificity = 82%

26

26

13
 27

27

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCALES

MODIFIED RANKIN SCALE(mRS)

• 7-grade scale measuring functional independence and gait

stability

• mRS has been used to measure stroke outcomes and

functional impact post-stroke

• The scale is used a “core metric” of Comprehensive Stroke

Centers; evaluating 90-day clinical outcomes of post-IV tPA
(Alteplase) or endovascular intervention (EVT) patients

• A mRS score appears to show moderate correlation with the

volume of cerebral infarction

• Good Outcome: 0-2

28

28

14
 29

29

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT SCALES

BARTHEL INDEX (BI)

• The index measures 10 basic aspects of self-care and patient’s physical

dependency.

• A normal Barthel Index score = 100

>60 = Assisted independence

<40 = Severe dependency

• Strength: An excellent validity and reliability rate and widely used for stroke.

• Limitation: A low sensitivity for high-level functioning or chronically disabled.

30

30

15
 BARTHEL ADL INDEX: GUIDELINES

1. The index should be used as a record of what a

patient does, not as a record of what a patient
could do.

2. The main aim is to establish degree of

independence from any help, physical or
verbal, however minor and for whatever reason.

3. The need for supervision renders the patient not

independent.

4. A patient’s performance should be established

using the best available evidence. Asking the
patient, friends/relatives and nurses are the
usual sources, but direct observation and
common sense are also important. However,
direct testing is not needed.

5. Usually the patient’s performance over the

preceding 24-48 hours is important, but
occasionally longer periods will be relevant.

6. Middle categories imply that the patient

supplies over 50% of the effort.

7. Use of aids to be independent is allowed.

31

31

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT SCALES

GLASGOW OUTCOME SCALE (GOS)

• Global scale evaluating functional outcome of patients status post traumatic brain
injury

• GOS predicts the long-term course of rehabilitation to return to work and everyday
life

• The scale rates a patient’s status

Severe injury in without
or death one ofrecovery
five categories:
of consciousness

• Death Severe damage with prolonged state of unresponsiveness; lack of mental functions
• Vegetative state
Severe injury with permanent need for help with daily living
• Severe disability
No need for assistance, employment is possible but may require special equipment
• Moderate disability
Light damage with minor neurological and psychological deficits
• Good recovery
32

32

16
 33

33

OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES

HACHINSKI ISCHAEMIA SCORE (HIS)

• 13-item scale used for differentiating various types of dementia

• A high HIS score of 7 or greater = vascular dementia

• A low HIS score of 6 or less = a non-vascular dementia neurological change

• Valid in predicting a true diagnosis based on acceptable sensitivity and specificity

defining vascular dementia.

• Research suggests that high HIS scores may indicate the presence of another
vascular factor, such as stroke, as the cause for a patients decrease in cognitive
function

34

34

17
 35

35

OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES

PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE-2 (PHQ2):

• The purpose of the PHQ-2 is to screen for depression in a “first-step”

approach, not to assess depression severity.

• A PHQ-2 score ranges from 0-6. The authors identified a score of 3 as the
optimal cutpoint when using the PHQ-2 to screen for depression.

• If the score is 3 or greater, major depressive disorder is likely.

• Patients who screen positive should be further evaluated with the PHQ-9,
other diagnostic instruments, or direct interview to determine whether
they meet criteria for a depressive disorder

• A PHQ-2 score of 3 or greater has a sensitivity for major depression of

83%, a specificity of 90%

• Limitation: Not validated in an inpatient setting

36

36

18
 OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES

PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE-2 (PHQ2):

37

37

OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES

PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE-9 (PHQ9):

• The PHQ-9 is a multipurpose instrument for screening, diagnosing, monitoring and

measuring the severity of depression

• PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27 for 9 items

• Advantages of the PHQ-9

• Shorter than other depression rating scales

• Can be administered in person by a clinician, by telephone, or self-administered
• Facilitates diagnosis of major depression
• Provides assessment of symptom severity
• Is well validated and documented in a variety of populations
• Can be used in adolescents as young as 12 years of age

• Question 9 is a single screening question on suicide risk. A patient who answers yes to
question 9 needs further assessment for suicide risk by an individual who is competent to
assess this risk.

• Score of 10 or greater, has sensitivity for major depression of 88%, a specificity of 88%

• Limitation: Limited in identifying individuals with anxiety disorders. Not been examined
for administration to psychiatric patients.

38

38

19
 OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES
PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE-9 (PHQ9):

39

39

OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES

PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE-9 (PHQ9):

40

40

20
 OTHER DIAGNOSTIC & SCREENING SCALES

HAMILTON RATING SCALE FOR DEPRESSION (HAM-D)

• 17-item questionnaire used to evaluate for depression and evaluate a

patient’s recovery status.

• Score of 0-7 is normal while a score of 20 or high is indicating a least

moderate severity

• Designed for adults and rates the severity of individual patient

depression by examining; mood, feelings of guilt, thoughts of suicide,
insomnia, agitation, cognitive delay, anxiety, loss of weight, and
somatic symptoms.

• Limitation: Focuses on insomnia; rather than feelings of hopelessness,

suicidal ideation or action.

41

41

42

42

21
 43

43

WHAT SCALE TO USE?

• Most Common:
CPS
NIHSS
mRS
Barthel

• No one scale fits every situation

• Which scale you use should be based on the question

you are trying to answer and the scales properties.

• They do not always tell the whole story

44

44

22
 THANK YOU

45

45

REFERENCES
Beck, A., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., And erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Arch gen psychiatry; 4:561-71.

Beck, a. And steer, R. (1987). Beck depression inventory: manual (revised edition). NY psychological corporation.

Bonita, R. and Beaglehole, R. (1988). Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke; 19:1497-1500.

Bruno, A., Shah, N., Lin, C., Close, B., Hess, D., Davis, K., et al. (2010). Improving Modified Rankin Scale assessment with a simplified questionnaire. Stroke; 41:1048-1050.
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.571562

Goldstein, L. (2019). Use and utility of stroke scales and grading systems. Up To Date. Retrieved from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/use-and-utility-of-stroke-scales-and-grading-
systems

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a Two-Item Depression Screener. Medical Care. 2003;41:1284-92.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606-13.

Maas, M., Furie, K., Lev, M., Ay, H., Singhal, A., Greer, D., et al. (2009). National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score is poorly predictive of proximal occlusion in acute cerebral ischemia.
Stroke; 40:2988-2993. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.555664

Mahoney, F. and Barthel, D. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal; 14:56-61.

Meyer BC, Lyden PD. Int J Stroke. 2009 Aug;4(4):267-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00294.x.

Powers, W., Rabinstein, A., Ackerson, T., Adeoye, O., Bambakidis, N., Becker, K., et al. (2018). 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: A guideline
for
healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke; 49:e46-e99. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000158

Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. J appl psychol meas; 1:385-401.

Ver hage et al. (2011). The NIH stroke scale: A window into neurological status. Nurse.com. Nursing Spectrum; 24:44-49.

Yesavage, j., Brink, T., Rose, T., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M., And leirer, V. (1983). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report.
J psychiatr res; 17:37-49.
46

46

23