Factors influencing prescription and administration of analgesic medication: A longitudinal study of people with dementia living in care homes

Identifying Residents Who May Benefit from an Analgesic Review: Applying Analgesic Indicators in Residential Aged Care Services

BACKGROUND

Ensuring safe and effective analgesic use in residential aged care services is important because older adults are susceptible to analgesic-related adverse drug events (ADEs).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the proportion and characteristics of residents of aged care services who may benefit from analgesic review based on indicators in the 2021 Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA) Pain Management Guideline.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from the Frailty in Residential Sector over Time (FIRST) study (N = 550 residents) across 12 South Australian residential aged care services in 2019 were conducted. Indicators included the proportion of residents who received > 3000 mg/day of acetaminophen (paracetamol), regular opioids without a documented clinical rationale, opioid doses > 60 mg morphine equivalents (MME)/day, more than one long-acting opioid concurrently, and a pro re nata (PRN) opioid on more than two occasions in the previous 7 days. Logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with residents who may benefit from analgesic review.

RESULTS

Of 381 (69.3%) residents charted regular acetaminophen, 176 (46.2%) were charted > 3000 mg/day. Of 165 (30%) residents charted regular opioids, only 2 (1.2%) had no prespecified potentially painful conditions in their medical record and 31 (18.8%) received > 60 MME/day. Of 153 (27.8%) residents charted long-acting opioids, 8 (5.2%) received more than one long-acting opioid concurrently. Of 212 (38.5%) residents charted PRN opioids, 10 (4.7%) received more than two administrations in the previous 7 days. Overall, 196 (35.6%) of 550 residents were identified as potentially benefiting from analgesic review. Females (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.91) and residents with prior fracture (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12-2.33) were more likely to be identified. Observed pain (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88) was associated with a lower likelihood of being identified compared with residents with no observed pain. Overall, 43 (7.8%) residents were identified based on opioid-related indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to one in three residents may benefit from a review of their analgesic regimen, including 1 in 13 who may benefit from a specific review of their opioid regimen. Analgesic indicators represent a new approach to target analgesic stewardship interventions.

Family Involvement in Pain Management for People Living With Dementia: An Integrative Review

This review aimed to synthesize current evidence on family involvement in pain management for people living with dementia from the perceptions of family carers and health care professionals. An integrative review was conducted using CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the articles, followed by thematic analysis. Twelve studies were included and four themes were identified: (1) The roles and responsibilities of family carers; (2) Enablers and barriers for pain identification; (3) Strategies and concerns for pain management; and (4) Lack of staff education and communication with health care providers. Family carers play an important role in pain assessment and management for people living with dementia, but they cannot be actively involved in this process due to a lack of communication with health care providers. An integrated approach that includes education and communication with family carers and health care providers is needed.

Correlates of Opioid Use Among Ontario Long-Term Care Residents and Variation by Pain Frequency and Intensity: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Background

Chronic non-cancer pain is common among older residents of long-term care (LTC) homes and often poorly recognized and treated. With heightened concerns regarding opioid prescribing in recent years, it is important to examine the current prevalence of opioid use and its association with resident characteristics to help identify those potentially at risk of medication harms as well as suboptimal pain management.

Objectives

The aims were to estimate the prevalence and correlates of opioid use among non-palliative LTC residents and explore variation in opioid prevalence and correlates across strata defined by pain frequency and intensity.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of all older (aged > 65 years) LTC residents (excluding those with cancer or receiving palliative care) in Ontario, Canada during 2018–2019. Health administrative databases were linked with standardized clinical assessment data to ascertain residents’ health and pain characteristics and their opioid and other medication use. Modified Poisson regression models estimated unadjusted and adjusted associations between residents’ characteristics and opioid use, overall and across strata capturing pain frequency and intensity.

Results

Among 75,020 eligible residents (mean age 85.1 years; 70% female), the prevalence of opioid use was 18.5% and pain was 29.4%. Opioid use ranged from 12.2% for residents with no current pain to 55.7% for those with severe pain. In adjusted models, residents newly admitted to LTC (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.62) and with moderate to severe cognitive impairment (aRR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.66–0.72) or dementia (aRR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.74–0.79) were significantly less likely to receive an opioid, whereas residents with select conditions (e.g., arthritis, aRR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.32–1.41) and concurrently using gabapentinoids (aRR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.74–1.86), benzodiazepines (aRR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.28–1.38), or antidepressants (aRR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.27–1.35) were significantly more likely to receive an opioid. The associations observed for residents newly admitted, with dementia, and concurrently using gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants were largely consistent across all pain strata.

Conclusions

Our findings describe resident sub-groups at potentially higher risk of adverse health outcomes in relation to both opioid use and non-use. LTC clinical and policy changes informed by research are required to ensure the appropriate recognition and management of non-cancer pain in this setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40266-022-00972-9.

Analgesic effect of auricular point acupressure for acute pain in patients with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Common and frequent as acute pain is, it is often underestimated and undertreated in older people with dementia in nursing homes and inadequate pain management remains an issue.

Methods

The study is designed to be a randomized, sham-controlled trial and is underway in nursing homes located in China. A total of 206 dementia patients are being recruited from nursing homes in Yinchuan, China. They are randomly allocated to an intervention or a controlled group in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group will be treated with true APP therapy, while the other group will receive APP at sham point stimulation therapy. The patients will be assessed at baseline (T0), at 5 min during performing the intervention (T1), and at 5 min after completion of the intervention (T2). The primary outcome is the level of pain relief at T1 and T2. Physiological parameters, side effects and additional use of analgesics during the procedure, satisfaction from caregivers, and acceptance of patients are evaluated as secondary outcomes.

Discussion

The results of this study are expected to verify the analgesic effect of APP for acute pain in patients with mild dementia in nursing homes. It has the potential to prompt APP therapy to be implemented widely in dementia patients with acute pain in nursing homes.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100047932. Registered on 27 June 2021. Currently, patient recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment is expected to take place from December 2020 to December 2021.

Algorithm-based pain management for people with dementia in nursing homes

BACKGROUND

People with dementia in nursing homes often experience pain, but often do not receive adequate pain therapy. The experience of pain has a significant impact on quality of life in people with dementia, and is associated with negative health outcomes. Untreated pain is also considered to be one of the causes of challenging behaviour, such as agitation or aggression, in this population. One approach to reducing pain in people with dementia in nursing homes is an algorithm-based pain management strategy, i.e. the use of a structured protocol that involves pain assessment and a series of predefined treatment steps consisting of various non-pharmacological and pharmacological pain management interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions to reduce pain and challenging behaviour in people with dementia living in nursing homes. To describe the components of the interventions and the content of the algorithms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 30 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions for people with dementia living in nursing homes. All interventions had to include an initial pain assessment, a treatment algorithm (a treatment plan consisting of at least two different non-pharmacological or pharmacological treatment steps to reduce pain), and criteria to assess the success of each treatment step. The control groups could receive usual care or an active control intervention. Primary outcomes for this review were pain-related outcomes, e.g. the number of participants with pain (self- or proxy-rated), challenging behaviour (we used a broad definition that could also include agitation or behavioural and psychological symptoms assessed with any validated instrument), and serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. We reported results narratively as there were too few studies for a meta-analysis. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three cluster-randomised controlled trials with a total of 808 participants (mean age 82 to 89 years). In two studies, participants had severe cognitive impairment and in one study mild to moderate impairment. The algorithms used in the studies varied in the number of treatment steps. The comparator was pain education for nursing staff in two studies and usual care in one study. We judged the risk of detection bias to be high in one study. The risk of selection bias and performance bias was unclear in all studies. Self-rated pain (i.e. pain rated by participants themselves) was reported in two studies. In one study, all residents in the nursing homes were included, but fewer than half of the participants experienced pain at baseline, and the mean values of self-rated and proxy-rated pain at baseline and follow-up in both study groups were below the threshold of pain that may require treatment. We considered the evidence from this study to be very low-certainty and therefore are uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 170 participants; Verbal Descriptor Scale, range 0 to 3). In the other study, all participants had mild to moderate pain at baseline. Here, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may have little to no effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.38, 246 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12). Pain was rated by proxy in all three studies. Again, we considered the evidence from the study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline to be very low-certainty and were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on proxy-rated pain intensity compared with pain education. For participants with mild to moderate pain at baseline, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain intensity in comparison with usual care (MD -1.49, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.87, 1 study, 128 participants; Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale-Chinese version, range 0 to 10), but may not be more effective than pain education (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.39, 1 study, 383 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12). For challenging behaviour, we found very low-certainty evidence from one study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline. We were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had any more effect than education for nursing staff on challenging behaviour of participants (MD -0.21, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.46, 1 study, 170 participants; Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Chinese version, range 7 to 203). None of the studies systematically assessed adverse effects or serious adverse effects and no study reported information about the occurrence of any adverse effect. None of the studies assessed any of the other outcomes of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence for a benefit of an algorithm-based pain management intervention in comparison with pain education for reducing pain intensity or challenging behaviour in people with dementia in nursing homes. We found that the intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain compared with usual care. However, the certainty of evidence is low because of the small number of studies, small sample sizes, methodological limitations, and the clinical heterogeneity of the study populations (e.g. pain level and cognitive status). The results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should also focus on the implementation of algorithms and their impact in clinical practice.

Effect of Auricular Acupressure on Acute Pain in Nursing Home Residents with Mild Dementia: A Single-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Study

Introduction

Acute pain is a prevalent problem for dementia residents in nursing homes. A variety of intervention strategies have been applied to address this problem. However, there remains an issue of inadequate pain control. This study aims to explore the analgesic efficacy of auricular acupressure (AA) for dementia residents with acute pain in nursing homes.

Methods

A multicenter, single-blind, randomized, and sham-controlled clinical trial was performed in three nursing homes in Yinchuan, China. All of the 206 eligible patients with acute pain were randomly divided into two groups for real AA therapy or sham AA (at sham point stimulation) therapy. The primary outcome was measured with a face pain scale revised (FPS-R) score before the procedure, 5 min after the start of the intervention, and 5 min after finishing the procedure. Secondary outcomes covered three physiological parameters, adverse reactions observed, satisfaction level of caregivers, acceptance of patients, and additional use of analgesics.

Results

There was a significant difference in pain scores based on FPS-R between the two groups (p < 0.01). Pain score in the true AA group was 1.84 ± 0.23, compared with 2.22 ± 0.81 in the sham AA group. No adverse events were found during the whole procedure for all patients. The satisfaction level of caregivers and acceptance of patients in the real AA group were significantly higher than those in the sham AA group.

Conclusion

This study shows that real AA was an alternative analgesic modality in reducing acute pain in patients with mild dementia.