Pain Assessment and Management Among Nursing Home Residents Living With Dementia.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Barbara Resnick, Elizabeth Galik, Rachel McPherson, Nayeon Kim, Sorah Levy, Shijun Zhu
{"title":"Pain Assessment and Management Among Nursing Home Residents Living With Dementia.","authors":"Barbara Resnick, Elizabeth Galik, Rachel McPherson, Nayeon Kim, Sorah Levy, Shijun Zhu","doi":"10.1016/j.pmn.2025.04.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to describe adherence to survey guidance for the assessment, diagnosis and management of pain across four nursing home communities.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a descriptive study using baseline data from the study, Testing the Implementation of the Pain Clinical Practice Guideline Using the Evidence Integration Triangle (Pain-CPG-EIT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Community level data were obtained from Care Compare. Resident data were obtained from the electronic medical record and direct assessments of cognitive status based on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 88 residents with a mean age of 81(SD = 9) and mean BIMS score of 5(SD = 5). The majority was female (72%), white (70%), and non-Hispanic (90%). For 74% of participants, the appropriate assessment tool was not used based on the individual's cognitive status. The majority (93%) of residents had pain addressed in their care plans although these were generic and not person-centered. Overall, 35% of the residents were exposed to nonpharmacologic interventions for pain, 59% were exposed to pharmacologic interventions, and only 2.9(SD = 3.6) out of 10 items were completed for appropriate use of opioids.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pain assessment for residents living with dementia did not meet survey guidance and continues to be a challenge for nursing home staff.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Ongoing work is needed to monitor that interventions are appropriate, effective and safe and that care plans are individualized. Increased adherence to survey guidance for the assessment and management of pain in residents living with dementia will decrease risk to the communities and improve pain assessment and management for residents.</p>","PeriodicalId":19959,"journal":{"name":"Pain Management Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Management Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2025.04.005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe adherence to survey guidance for the assessment, diagnosis and management of pain across four nursing home communities.

Design: This was a descriptive study using baseline data from the study, Testing the Implementation of the Pain Clinical Practice Guideline Using the Evidence Integration Triangle (Pain-CPG-EIT).

Methods: Community level data were obtained from Care Compare. Resident data were obtained from the electronic medical record and direct assessments of cognitive status based on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scales.

Results: The study included 88 residents with a mean age of 81(SD = 9) and mean BIMS score of 5(SD = 5). The majority was female (72%), white (70%), and non-Hispanic (90%). For 74% of participants, the appropriate assessment tool was not used based on the individual's cognitive status. The majority (93%) of residents had pain addressed in their care plans although these were generic and not person-centered. Overall, 35% of the residents were exposed to nonpharmacologic interventions for pain, 59% were exposed to pharmacologic interventions, and only 2.9(SD = 3.6) out of 10 items were completed for appropriate use of opioids.

Conclusions: Pain assessment for residents living with dementia did not meet survey guidance and continues to be a challenge for nursing home staff.

Clinical implications: Ongoing work is needed to monitor that interventions are appropriate, effective and safe and that care plans are individualized. Increased adherence to survey guidance for the assessment and management of pain in residents living with dementia will decrease risk to the communities and improve pain assessment and management for residents.

老年痴呆症患者的疼痛评估与管理。
目的:本研究的目的是描述四个养老院社区对疼痛评估、诊断和管理的调查指导的依从性。设计:这是一项描述性研究,使用来自研究的基线数据,使用证据整合三角(Pain- cpg - eit)测试疼痛临床实践指南的实施。方法:社区数据来自Care Compare。居民数据来自电子病历和基于精神状态简短访谈(BIMS)和晚期痴呆疼痛评估量表的认知状态直接评估。结果:研究纳入88名居民,平均年龄81岁(SD = 9), BIMS平均评分5分(SD = 5)。大多数是女性(72%),白人(70%)和非西班牙裔(90%)。对于74%的参与者,没有根据个人的认知状况使用适当的评估工具。大多数(93%)的居民在他们的护理计划中提到了疼痛,尽管这些都是通用的,不是以人为中心的。总体而言,35%的居民接受了非药物干预治疗疼痛,59%的居民接受了药物干预治疗,10项中只有2.9项(SD = 3.6)完成了阿片类药物的适当使用。结论:痴呆患者的疼痛评估不符合调查指导,对养老院工作人员来说仍然是一个挑战。临床意义:需要进行持续的工作来监测干预措施是否适当、有效和安全,以及护理计划是否个性化。加强对痴呆居民疼痛评估和管理的调查指导的依从性将降低社区的风险,并改善居民的疼痛评估和管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Management Nursing
Pain Management Nursing 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
187
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal offers a unique focus on the realm of pain management as it applies to nursing. Original and review articles from experts in the field offer key insights in the areas of clinical practice, advocacy, education, administration, and research. Additional features include practice guidelines and pharmacology updates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信