A psychometric evaluation of three pain rating scales for people with moderate to severe dementia

Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self- Report: Clinical Practice Recommendations in Support of the ASPMN 2024 Position Statement

Recognizing and managing pain is especially challenging for vulnerable populations who cannot communicate their discomfort. Because there is no valid and reliable objective measure of pain, the American Society for Pain Management Nursing advocates for comprehensive assessment practices articulated in a Hierarchy of Pain Assessment. These practices must gather relevant information to infer the presence of pain and evaluate a patient's response to treatment. Nurses and other healthcare providers must be advocates for those who cannot communicate their pain experience.

Pain in Dementia: An Empirical Test of a Common Assumption

Numerous, and often largely overlapping, observational pain assessment tools have been developed specifically to assess pain in older adults with dementia under the assumption that a specialized approach is necessary to evaluate pain in this population. However, this assumption has never been tested empirically. As an empirical test of this implicit assumption, our goal was to compare existing tools for people living with dementia (with respect to psychometric properties), not only against each other, but also against a tool developed for a different population with cognitive impairments. Videos of older adults with severe dementia recorded in long-term care settings were coded for pain behaviors in the laboratory. Trained coders coded pain behaviors in video segments of older adults with dementia during a quiet baseline condition as well as during a physical examination (designed to identify painful areas), using various observational pain assessment tools. An observational measure of agitation was employed to facilitate the assessment of discriminant validity. Consistent with our expectations, all pain tools (including the tool developed for younger people with cognitive impairments) successfully differentiated between painful and nonpainful states, with large effect sizes. This was the first study to compare tools specifically developed to assess pain in people living with dementia to a tool developed for a different population. Given that all tools under study showed satisfactory psychometric properties when tested on persons with dementia, this study suggests that the assumption that different tools are necessary for different populations with cognitive impairments cannot be taken for granted. PERSPECTIVE: This article challenges an implicitly held assumption that specialized tools are needed to assess pain in different populations with cognitive impairments. Given commonalities in pain expression across populations, further research is needed to determine whether population-specific tools are needed.

Pain assessment tools in adults with communication disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Verbal communication is the "gold standard" for assessing pain. Consequently, individuals with communication disorders are particularly vulnerable to incomplete pain management. This review aims at identifying the current pain assessment instruments for adult patients with communication disorders.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted on PubMed, PEDRO, EBSCOhost, VHL and Cochrane databases from 2011 to 2023 using MeSH terms "pain assessment, "nonverbal communication" and "communication disorders" in conjunction with additional inclusion criteria: studies limited to humans, interventions involving adult patients, and empirical investigations.

RESULTS

Fifty articles were included in the review. Seven studies report sufficient data to perform the meta-analysis. Observational scales are the most common instruments to evaluate pain in individuals with communication disorders followed by physiological measures and facial recognition systems. While most pain assessments rely on observational scales, current evidence does not strongly endorse one scale over others for clinical practice. However, specific observational scales appear to be particularly suitable for identifying pain during certain potentially painful procedures, such as suctioning and mobilization, in these populations. Additionally, specific observational scales appear to be well-suited for certain conditions, such as mechanically ventilated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While observational scales dominate pain assessment, no universal tool exists for adults with communication disorders. Specific scales exhibit promise for distinct populations, yet the diverse landscape of tools hampers a one-size-fits-all solution. Crucially, further high-quality research, offering quantitative data like reliability findings, is needed to identify optimal tools for various contexts. Clinicians should be informed to select tools judiciously, recognizing the nuanced appropriateness of each in diverse clinical situations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) with the ID: CRD42022323655 .

Chronic pain interference assessment tools for children and adults who are unable to self-report: A systematic review of psychometric properties

AIM

To identify and evaluate psychometric properties of assessment tools for assessing pain interference in children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain and the inability to self-report.

METHOD

The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022310102). A search was run in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo (29th March 2022) to identify articles reporting psychometric properties of pain interference assessment tools for children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain and the inability to objectively self-report pain. Retrieved studies were reviewed by two authors (MGS, LCF) and study quality was assessed using COSMIN.

RESULTS

Psychometric properties of 10 pain interference tools were assessed from 33 studies. The Paediatric Pain Profile (PPP) had low-quality evidence for content validity and internal consistency with children and adolescents who are unable to self-report. No tools for adults had evidence for content validity and internal consistency. No tool had evidence for all nine psychometric properties.

INTERPRETATION

The PPP is recommended for pain interference assessment in children and adolescents with chronic pain and the inability to self-report. Few tools are available for adults. Three tools for children (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pediatric Proxy Pain Interference Scale; Bath Adolescent Pain Questionnaire for Parents; modified Brief Pain Inventory-Proxy [mBPI]) and three tools for adults (Doloplus-2; Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pain Interference Scale-proxy; Brief Pain Inventory-proxy) are promising but require further investigation.

The Relationship Between Rejection of Care Behaviors and Pain and Delirium Severity in Hospital Dementia Care

Background and Objectives

Rejection of care is common in hospitalized persons living with dementia. However, distinguishing between rejection of care behaviors related to care practices or other causes, such as pain or delirium, is challenging. The purpose of this study is to further understand the relationship between rejection of care and pain and delirium in hospitalized patients with dementia by identifying which rejection of care behaviors are associated with pain and delirium.

Research Design and Methods

Care encounters between hospitalized patients with dementia (n = 16) and nursing staff (n = 53) were observed on 88 separate occasions across 35 days. Rejection of care was measured using the 13 behaviors from the Resistiveness to Care Scale. Pain and delirium severity were measured using a variety of scales including the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale, Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators, and numeric rating scale for pain severity and the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity short form and Delirium Observation Screening Scale for delirium severity. Linear mixed modeling was used to determine the relationship between rejection of care behaviors and pain and delirium severity for each measure.

Results

About 48.9% of the observations included rejection of care, 49.9% included a patient in pain, and 12.5% included a patient with delirium. Cry, push away, scream/yell, and turn away indicated a higher pain severity across pain measures. No rejection of care behaviors were found to indicate delirium severity.

Discussion and Implications

Certain rejection of care behaviors may be helpful in identifying pain in hospitalized patients with dementia, suggesting that caregivers should be cognizant of pain when these rejection of care behaviors are present. However, in this sample rejection of care behaviors was not found to be useful for identifying delirium severity in hospital dementia care.

Psychometric properties of pain measurements for people living with dementia: a COSMIN systematic review

PURPOSE

Detecting pain in older people with dementia is challenging. Consequentially, pain is often under-reported and under-treated. There remains uncertainty over what measures should be promoted for use to assess pain in this population. The purpose of this paper is to answer this question.

METHODS

A search of clinical trials registered on the ClinicalTrial.gov and ISRCTN registries was performed to identify outcome measures used to assess pain in people with dementia. Following this, a systematic review of published and unpublished databases was performed to 01 November 2021 to identify papers assessing the psychometric properties of these identified measures. Each paper and measure was assessed against the COSMIN checklist. A best evidence synthesis analysis was performed to assess the level of evidence for each measure.

RESULTS

From 188 clinical trials, nine outcome measures were identified. These included: Abbey Pain Scale, ALGOPLUS, DOLOPLUS-2, Facial Action Coding System, MOBID-2, self-reported pain through the NRS or VAS/thermometer or Philadelphia Geriatric Pain Intensity Scale, PACSLAC/PACSLAC-2, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), and Checklist for non-verbal pain behavior (CNPI). From these, 51 papers (5924 people with dementia) were identified assessing the psychometric properties of these measures. From these, there was strong- and moderate-level evidence to support the use of the facial action coding system, PACSLAC and PACSLAC-II, CNPI, DOLOPLUS-2, ALGOPLUS, MOBID, and MOBID-2 tools for the assessment of pain with people living with dementia.

CONCLUSION

Whilst these reflect measurement tools used in research, further consideration on how these reflect clinical practice should be considered.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021282032.

Pain Assessment for Individuals with Advanced Dementia in Care Homes: A Systematic Review

Pain is prevalent in older people, especially in those with advanced dementia who have communication impairments. Although pain is recognised to be present in this population, it is often under-assessed and ineffectively managed. The assessment of pain in advanced dementia is extremely challenging and complex, particularly in institutional settings such as care homes. This study systematically reviews the literature to examine and characterise the evidence for the use of pain assessment tools in care homes with individuals living with advanced dementia. Relevant publications were sourced from electronic bibliometric medical databases including AMED, CINAHL Plus, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, TRIP Pro, Google Scholar, and HINARI. The database search was supplemented by screening citations and reference lists, in addition to a grey literature searches. The search identified 2221 studies, among which 26 were included in the review. The majority of the studies were observational, which created a rich source of data to create four major themes. The findings were informed and shaped by working with key stakeholders to develop a conceptual model that can contribute to developing evidence-based practice. This highlights the importance of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach to pain assessment in this population, which is beyond the use of tools.

Care home residents’ quality of life and its association with CQC ratings and workforce issues: the MiCareHQ mixed-methods study

Background

Care home staff have a critical bearing on quality. The staff employed, the training they receive and how well they identify and manage residents’ needs are likely to influence outcomes. The Care Act 2014 (Great Britain. The Care Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office; 2014) requires services to improve ‘well-being’, but many residents cannot self-report and are at risk of exclusion from giving their views. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit enables social care-related quality of life to be measured using a mixed-methods approach. There is currently no equivalent way of measuring aspects of residents’ health-related quality of life. We developed new tools for measuring pain, anxiety and depression using a mixed-methods approach. We also explored the relationship between care home quality, residents’ outcomes, and the skill mix and employment conditions of the workforce who support them.

Objectives

The objectives were to develop and test measures of pain, anxiety and depression for residents unable to self-report; to assess the extent to which regulator quality ratings reflect residents’ care-related quality of life; and to assess the relationship between aspects of the staffing of care homes and the quality of care homes.

Design

This was a mixed-methods study.

Setting

The setting was care homes for older adults in England.

Participants

Care home residents participated.

Results

Three measures of pain, anxiety and low mood were developed and tested, using a mixed-methods approach, with 182 care home residents in 20 care homes (nursing and residential). Psychometric testing found that the measures had good construct validity. The mixed-methods approach was both feasible and necessary with this population, as the majority of residents could not self-report. Using a combined data set (n = 475 residents in 54 homes) from this study and the Measuring Outcomes in Care Homes study (Towers AM, Palmer S, Smith N, Collins G, Allan S. A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between regulator quality ratings and care home residents’ quality of life in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2019;17:22) we found a significant positive association between residents’ social care-related quality of life and regulator (i.e. Care Quality Commission) quality ratings. Multivariate regression revealed that homes rated ‘good/outstanding’ are associated with a 12% improvement in mean current social care-related quality of life among residents who have higher levels of dependency. Secondary data analysis of a large, national sample of care homes over time assessed the impact of staffing and employment conditions on Care Quality Commission quality ratings. Higher wages and a higher prevalence of training in both dementia and dignity-/person-centred care were positively associated with care quality, whereas high staff turnover and job vacancy rates had a significant negative association. A 10% increase in the average care worker wage increased the likelihood of a ‘good/outstanding’ rating by 7%.

Limitations

No care homes rated as inadequate were recruited to the study.

Conclusions

The most dependent residents gain the most from homes rated ‘good/outstanding’. However, measuring the needs and outcomes of these residents is challenging, as many cannot self-report. A mixed-methods approach can reduce methodological exclusion and an over-reliance on proxies. Improving working conditions and reducing staff turnover may be associated with better outcomes for residents.

Future work

Further work is required to explore the relationship between pain, anxiety and low mood and other indicators of care homes quality and to examine the relationship between wages, training and social care outcomes.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Spanish adaptation and validation of the Pain Assessment Scale in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) in patients with dementia and impaired verbal communication: cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to adapt and validate the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale in Spanish.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

Two health districts of Andalusian provinces, located in the south of Spain, through the Andalusian network of Primary Healthcare centres and four institutions dedicated to the care of patients with dementia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 100 older people, with a medical diagnosis of dementia and a score on the Global Deterioration Scale between 5 and 7 were assessed using the PAINAD scale.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Psychometric properties including content validity, construct validity and reliability of the scale have been tested.

RESULTS

The overall Item Content Validity Index was excellent (0.95). Regarding construct validity, it was confirmed that a lower use of analgesics implied a lower score on the PAINAD scale (p<0.05). The internal consistency of the scale was 0.76 and it increases to 0.81 if we remove the breathing item. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) used to assess interobserver reliability was 0.94, whereas the ICC used to assess temporary stability was 0.55.

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish version of the PAINAD scale is a valid tool to assess pain in patients with dementia and inability to communicate verbally.

Collectif Doloplus : déjà vingt-cinq ans au service de la douleur des plus âgés

Collectif Doloplus: twenty-five years supporting the fight against pain in the elderly. Speech and communication disorders among the elderly can be an obstacle in the detection and evaluation of pain. In these conditions, the Doloplus and Algoplus (heteroassessment) behavioural scales should be used. This article provides an overview of the guidelines for using these two scales and the role each has in daily practice. It also shows the impact a high-quality evaluative approach can have on the care provided.

Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the Doloplus-2 (P-Doloplus-2) scale in elderly with dementia

Background/aim

A scale for behavioural pain assessment is useful for the detection and determination of pain in the elderly with dementia. This study aimed to translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of Doloplus-2 in the elderly with dementia in Iran.

Materials and methods

In this methodological study, after translation and evaluating the face and content validity of Doloplus-2, 100 elderly people were selected by the convenience sampling method in Kashan, 2018–2019. Exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity, and known-groups comparison were applied to determine construct validity. Reliability was also assessed through internal consistency, equivalence, and stability methods were used. The ceiling and floor effects were also examined. Data were analyzed using the SPSS-v16 and via Mann-Whitney U test, Cronbach’s alpha, Spearman-Brown, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

The scale’s content validity index was 0.95%, and the item impact of each item was above 1.5. Factor analysis identified 2 “social- functional” and “conventional subjective-objective” factors in scale that altogether were able to explain 76% of the total variance. The results revealed that P-Doloplus-2 could discriminate between the 2 groups of elderly with and without known chronic painful diseases (P < 0.0001). There was a significant positive correlation between P-Doloplus-2 and PACSLAC-II-IR scores (r = 0.878, P < 0.0001). Cronbach’s alpha, ICC, and standard error of measurement for the scale were 0.950, 0.864, and ± 1.759, respectively. The frequency of minimum and maximum possible score of scale was less than 15%.

Conclusion

The Persian version of Doloplus-2 can be considered as a valid and reliable scale for pain assessment in the elderly with dementia.

Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales

PURPOSE

To study the various pain assessment tools based on their psychometric properties and ease of use.

METHODS

Published articles on psychometric properties of pain tools were accessed and data collected for low back pain (LBP)-specific tools, generic tools, neuropathic LBP tools, tools for cognitively impaired patients, and tools for acute LBP.

RESULTS

Among the LBP-specific tools, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have good construct validity and reliability, and responsiveness over short intervals. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) gauges only disability and sleep. Among the generic tools, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) show good responsiveness, but BPI is the only tool validated for LBP. Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and Short Form-MPQ-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are both reliable tools for neuropathic LBP. For cognitively impaired patients, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Abbey Pain Scale (APS), and Doloplus-2 are all reliable tools, but PAINAD has good construct validity. For acute pain, Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) is reliable and responsive, but presently, unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 are the tools most preferred.

CONCLUSION

Based on psychometric properties and ease of use, the best tools for LBP seem to be RMDQ/ODI (among LBP-specific tools), BPI (among generic tools), SF-MPQ-2/NPS (for neuropathic LBP), PAINAD (for cognitively impaired patients), and unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 (for acute pain). Overall, BPI seems to be a tool that can be relied upon the most. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Correlation between biomarkers of pain in saliva and PAINAD scale in elderly people with cognitive impairment and inability to communicate: descriptive study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pain is an under-diagnosed problem in elderly people, especially in those with cognitive impairment who are unable to verbalise their pain. Although the Pain assessment in advanced dementia scale (PAINAD) scale is a tool recognised for its clinical interest in this type of patients, its correlation with the saliva biomarkers reinforced its utility. The aim of this research will be to correlate the scores of this scale with the levels of biomarkers of pain found in saliva samples of patients with cognitive impairment and inability to communicate.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an observational study. The level of pain will be evaluated using the PAINAD scale. Moreover, pain biomarkers, in particular secretory IgA and soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor type II, will be determined in saliva. Both assessments will be conducted in 75 patients aged over 65 years with advanced cognitive impairment and inability to communicate. The PAINAD scores will be correlated with the levels of these biomarkers of pain. A control group consisting of 75 healthy subjects aged over 65 years will be included in the study. Moreover, sociodemographic variables and variables related to pain, dementia and other clinical conditions will be recorded. The analysis will be performed with the statistical package SPSS V.22 and the software R.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Andalusian Human Research Ethics Committee. In addition, this study has been financed by the Junta de Andalucía through a regional health research fund (Research code: PI-0357-2017). The results will be actively disseminated trough a high-impact journal in our study area, conference presentations and social media.

Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self-Report: Clinical Practice Recommendations in Support of the ASPMN 2019 Position Statement

Pain is a subjective experience, unfortunately, some patients cannot provide a self-report of pain verbally, in writing, or by other means. In patients who are unable to self-report pain, other strategies must be used to infer pain and evaluate interventions. In support of the ASPMN position statement "Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self-Report", this paper provides clinical practice recommendations for five populations in which difficulty communicating pain often exists: neonates, toddlers and young children, persons with intellectual disabilities, critically ill/unconscious patients, older adults with advanced dementia, and patients at the end of life. Nurses are integral to ensuring assessment and treatment of these vulnerable populations.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Electronic Pain Assessment Tool: An Innovative Instrument for Individuals with Moderate-to-Severe Dementia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pain is common in aged care residents with dementia; yet it often goes undetected. A novel tool, the electronic Pain Assessment Tool (ePAT), was developed to address this challenging problem. We investigated the psychometric properties of the ePAT.

METHODS

In a 10-week prospective observational study, the ePAT was evaluated by comparison against the Abbey Pain Scale (APS). Pain assessments were blindly co-performed by the ePAT rater against the nursing staff of two residential aged care facilities. The residents were assessed twice by each rater: at rest and following movement.

RESULTS

The study involved 34 residents aged 85.5 ± 6.3 years, predominantly with severe dementia (Psychogeriatric Assessment Scale - Cognitive Impairment score = 19.7 ± 2.5). Four hundred paired assessments (n = 204 during rest; n = 196 following movement) were performed. Concurrent validity (r = 0.911) and all reliability measures (κw = 0.857; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.904; α = 0.950) were excellent, while discriminant validity and predictive validity were good.

CONCLUSION

The ePAT is a suitable tool for the assessment of pain in this vulnerable population.

Older Adult Emergency Department Pain Management Strategies

Older adults frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with pain, which is often underrecognized and undertreated. There is high variability of pain management and prescribing practices by ED providers. This article focuses on treatment of older adults in the ED who present with pain and addresses special considerations for this population. Social supports and follow-up must be considered in discharge treatment recommendations.

Pain Assessment in Dementia: Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Technological Solution

Pain is common among people with moderate to severe dementia, but inability of patients to self-report means it often goes undetected and untreated. We developed the electronic Pain Assessment Tool (ePAT) to address this issue. A point-of-care App, it utilizes facial recognition technology to detect facial micro-expressions indicative of pain. ePAT also records the presence of pain-related behaviors under five additional domains (Voice, Movement, Behavior, Activity, and Body). In this observational study, we assessed the psychometric properties of ePAT compared to the Abbey Pain Scale (APS). Forty aged care residents (70% females) over the age of 60 years, with moderate to severe dementia and a history of pain-related condition(s) were recruited into the study. Three hundred and fifty-three paired pain assessments (either at rest or post-movement) were recorded and analyzed. The ePAT demonstrated excellent concurrent validity (r = 0.882, 95% CI: 0.857–0.903) and good discriminant validity. Inter-rater reliability score was good overall (weighted κ= 0.74, 95% CI: 0.68–0.80) while internal consistency was excellent. ePAT has psychometric properties which make it suitable for use in non-communicative patients with dementia. ePAT also has the advantage of automated facial expression assessment which provides objective and reproducible evidence of the presence of pain.

Measurement properties, feasibility and clinical utility of the Doloplus-2 pain scale in older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic review

Background

The Doloplus-2 is a pain assessment scale for assessing pain in older adults with cognitive impairment. It is used in clinical practice and research. However, evidence for its measurement properties, feasibility and clinical utility remain incomplete. This systematic review synthesizes previous research on the measurement properties, feasibility and clinical utility of the scale.

Method

We conducted a systematic search in three databases (CINAHL, Medline and PsycINFO) for studies published in English, French, German, Dutch/Flemish or a Scandinavian language between 1990 and April 2017. We also reviewed the Doloplus-2 homepage and reference lists of included studies to supplement our search. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts and performed the quality assessment and data abstraction.

Results

A total of 24 studies were included in this systematic review. The quality of the studies varied, but many lacked sufficient detail about the samples and response rates. The Doloplus-2 has been studied using diverse samples in a variety of settings; most study participants were in long-term care and in people with dementia. Sixteen studies addressed various aspects of the scale’s feasibility and clinical utility, but their results are limited and inconsistent across settings and samples. Support for the scale’s reliability, validity and responsiveness varied widely across the studies. Generally, the reliability coefficients reached acceptable benchmarks, but the evidence for different aspects of the scale’s validity and responsiveness was incomplete.

Conclusion

Additional high-quality studies are warranted to determine in which populations of older adults with cognitive impairment the Doloplus-2 is reliable, valid and feasible. The ability of the Doloplus-2 to meaningfully quantify pain, measure treatment response and improve patient outcomes also needs further investigation.

Trial registration

PROSPERO reg. no.: CRD42016049697 registered 20. Oct. 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-017-0643-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low back pain in older adults: risk factors, management options and future directions

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the major disabling health conditions among older adults aged 60 years or older. While most causes of LBP among older adults are non-specific and self-limiting, seniors are prone to develop certain LBP pathologies and/or chronic LBP given their age-related physical and psychosocial changes. Unfortunately, no review has previously summarized/discussed various factors that may affect the effective LBP management among older adults. Accordingly, the objectives of the current narrative review were to comprehensively summarize common causes and risk factors (modifiable and non-modifiable) of developing severe/chronic LBP in older adults, to highlight specific issues in assessing and treating seniors with LBP, and to discuss future research directions. Existing evidence suggests that prevalence rates of severe and chronic LBP increase with older age. As compared to working-age adults, older adults are more likely to develop certain LBP pathologies (e.g., osteoporotic vertebral fractures, tumors, spinal infection, and lumbar spinal stenosis). Importantly, various age-related physical, psychological, and mental changes (e.g., spinal degeneration, comorbidities, physical inactivity, age-related changes in central pain processing, and dementia), as well as multiple risk factors (e.g., genetic, gender, and ethnicity), may affect the prognosis and management of LBP in older adults. Collectively, by understanding the impacts of various factors on the assessment and treatment of older adults with LBP, both clinicians and researchers can work toward the direction of more cost-effective and personalized LBP management for older people.

Assessment of cancer pain in a patient with communication difficulties: a case report

BACKGROUND

The number of patients who have difficulty with mutual understanding has been increasing recently due to an aging society. This emerging issue needs to be addressed. We report an instructive case of a patient who had communication difficulties due to dementia and sequelae of alcoholic encephalopathy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 66-year-old man of Mongolian race presented with coronary arteriosclerosis, spinal canal stenosis, transverse colon cancer, and alcoholic encephalopathy. We had been requested to remove wires that had been used for the closure of his chest in a coronary artery bypass grafting procedure. However, on admission, a tortured expression and abdominal distention were observed, along with emaciation. We diagnosed terminal stage cancer, and palliative care was offered. An abdominal computed tomographic scan revealed rectal cancer with stenosis and invasion to the adjacent tissues. A metallic stent was inserted, leading to reduction of the abdominal distention and an improvement of tachycardia. However, the patient's tortured expression was not completely relieved; therefore, an assessment of cancer pain was considered. The Abbey Pain Scale was applied. On the basis of the patient's score, analgesics and an opioid, among other medications, were administered. These led to relief of the patient's tortured expression and reduced his Abbey Pain Scale score. Following this, the patient's vital signs continued to be stable, and he was transferred to the referral institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of cancer pain in elderly patients with mutual understanding difficulties must be performed carefully. In the case of our patient, staff at the referral institution informed us of the patient's latent torture, and we applied the Abbey Pain Scale. There was some confusion and uncertainty regarding clinical management throughout the patient's care; however, his condition eventually stabilized. We believe the application of the Abbey Pain Scale assists in the relief of cancer pain. However, accumulation of further cases and experiences to verify this assessment is required.

Measures to assess commonly experienced symptoms for people with dementia in long-term care settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

High symptom burden is common in long-term care residents with dementia and results in distress and behavioral challenges if undetected. Physicians may have limited time to regularly examine all residents, particularly those unable to self-report, and may rely on reports from caregivers who are frequently in a good position to detect symptoms quickly. We aimed to identify proxy-completed assessment measures of symptoms experienced by people with dementia, and critically appraise the psychometric properties and applicability for use in long-term care settings by caregivers.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ASSIA from inception to 23 June 2015, supplemented by citation and reference searches. The search strategy used a combination of terms: dementia OR long-term care AND assessment AND symptoms (e.g. pain). Studies were included if they evaluated psychometric properties of proxy-completed symptom assessment measures for people with dementia in any setting or those of mixed cognitive abilities residing in long-term care settings. Measures were included if they did not require clinical training, and used proxy-observed behaviors to support assessment in verbally compromised people with dementia. Data were extracted on study setting and sample, measurement properties and psychometric properties. Measures were independently evaluated by two investigators using quality criteria for measurement properties, and evaluated for clinical applicability in long-term settings.

RESULTS

Of the 19,942 studies identified, 40 studies evaluating 32 measures assessing pain (n = 12), oral health (n = 2), multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms (n = 2), depression (n = 8), anxiety (n = 2), psychological wellbeing (n = 4), and discomfort (n = 2) were included. The majority of studies (31/40) were conducted in long-term care settings although none of the neuropsychiatric or anxiety measures were validated in this setting. The pain assessments, PAINAD and PACSLAC had the strongest psychometric evidence. The oral health, discomfort, and three psychological wellbeing measures were validated in this setting but require further psychometric evaluation. Depression measures were poor at detecting depression in this population. All measures require further investigation into agreement, responsiveness and interpretability.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures for pain are best developed for this population and setting. All other measures require further validation. A multi-symptom measure to support comprehensive assessment and monitoring in this population is required.