Temporal Trends in Analgesic Use in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review of International Prescribing

A mixed-methods study on the pharmacological management of pain in Australian and Japanese nursing homes

BACKGROUND

Understanding how analgesics are used in different countries can inform initiatives to improve the pharmacological management of pain in nursing homes.

AIMS

To compare patterns of analgesic use among Australian and Japanese nursing home residents; and explore Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals' perspectives on analgesic use.

METHODS

Part one involved a cross-sectional comparison among residents from 12 nursing homes in South Australia (N = 550) in 2019 and four nursing homes in Tokyo (N = 333) in 2020. Part two involved three focus groups with Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals (N = 16) in 2023. Qualitative data were deductively content analysed using the World Health Organization six-step Guide to Good Prescribing.

RESULTS

Australian and Japanese residents were similar in age (median: 89 vs 87) and sex (female: 73% vs 73%). Overall, 74% of Australian and 11% of Japanese residents used regular oral acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids. Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals described individualising pain management and the first-line use of acetaminophen. Australian participants described their therapeutic goal was to alleviate pain and reported analgesics were often prescribed on a regular basis. Japanese participants described their therapeutic goal was to minimise impacts of pain on daily activities and reported analgesics were often prescribed for short-term durations, corresponding to episodes of pain. Japanese participants described regulations that limit opioid use for non-cancer pain in nursing homes.

CONCLUSION

Analgesic use is more prevalent in Australian than Japanese nursing homes. Differences in therapeutic goals, culture, analgesic regulations and treatment durations may contribute to this apparent difference.

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.

A systematic review of opioid prevalence in Australian residential aged care facilities

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, Web of Science Core Collection, InformIT and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (inception to September 2021) were searched for studies reporting opioid prevalence in Australian RACFs. Regular and as-required (i.e. pro re nata, PRN) opioid uses were considered. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two review authors.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (n = 286,141 residents) reported opioid prevalence, of which 16 provided overall regular or PRN prescribing, dispensing or administration data. Five studies reported 28%-34% of residents were prescribed regular opioids over assessment periods ranging from one week to one month. Five studies reported 11%-42% of residents were prescribed PRN opioids over assessment periods ranging from one week to 30 months. Three studies reported 27%-50% of residents were dispensed an opioid over 12 months. Five studies reported 21%-29% were administered both regular and PRN opioids over 24 hours. Two studies reported 22%-42% of residents were administered PRN opioids over 1 week to 12 months. Two studies reported 6%-13% of residents were using doses >100 mg oral morphine equivalents/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to half of the residents were dispensed opioids over 12 months. The prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration was highly variable, suggesting the potential value of opioid quality indicators and analgesic stewardship interventions to ensure opioid appropriateness.

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.

Demographic and clinical profiles of residents in long-term care facilities in South Africa: A cross-sectional survey

Background

The demand for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) amongst older people in South Africa (SA) is growing and there is insufficient information on the profile and healthcare needs of this population.

Aim

This study was conducted to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of residents in LTFCs in SA.

Setting

Three LTCFs in eThekwini district.

Methods

A cross-sectional design was used to collect data from a purposive sample of 102 (N = 204) residents. A structured questionnaire was used to collect demographic and clinical data. The data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analysed descriptively and inferentially using R version 3.5.1 software.

Results

The majority of the residents (59.8%) were between 65 and 80 years (78.9 ± 8.1 years) and 74.5% were women. The residents were white people (91.1%), SA born (82.4%) and widowed (54.9%). English was the primary language (91.1%), with the majority being christian (52.0%). Some residents had a university education, were previously employed and are financially independent. Ninety-three percent had clinical conditions, each suffering from at least three clinical conditions. Hypertension (63.7%), high cholesterol (53.9%), arthritis (38.2%), depression (37.3%) were the most prevalent clinical conditions recorded amongst the residents. Most residents were assessed to be intermediately frail, at risk of malnutrition and had mild depression as based on the respective mean frailty-, nutrition-, and geriatric depression scores.

Conc lusion

Residents in LTCFs in the eThekwini district are more likely to be white people; women, christian, widowed, intermediately frail and at risk of malnutrition.

An overview of the use and misuse/abuse of opioid analgesics in different world regions and future perspectives

Opioids are an important therapeutic option for severe resistant chronic pain but, in the absence of proper oversight, their use has risks. The level of prescription opioid misuse/abuse differs among countries, due to differences in healthcare systems and pain management approaches. However, evaluating the true dimension of prescription opioid misuse/abuse is complicated by statistical reporting which often does not differentiate between prescription and illicit opioid use, or between prescription opioid use by patients and nonpatients, highlighting a need for greater uniformity. Parallel efforts to educate patients and the general public about opioid risks, facilitate appropriate analgesic prescribing and identify alternative formulations or options to use instead of or with opioids, may contribute to optimizing prescription opioid use for pain management.

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Analgesic Use and Appropriateness in Long-Term Care Facilities

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness of interventions to improve analgesic use and appropriateness in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to June 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled prospective interventions that included analgesic optimization, and reported postintervention change in analgesic use or appropriateness in LTCFs were included.

METHODS

Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 review authors.

RESULTS

Eight cluster RCTs, 2 controlled, and 6 uncontrolled studies comprising 9056 residents across 9 countries were included. The 16 interventions included education (n = 13), decision support (n = 7), system modifications (n = 6), and/or medication review (n = 3). Six interventions changed analgesic use or appropriateness, all of which included prescribers, 5 involved multidisciplinary collaboration, and 5 included a component of education. Education alone changed analgesic use and appropriateness in 1 study. Decision support was effective when combined with education in 3 interventions. Overall, 13 studies reported analgesic optimization as part of pain management interventions and 3 studies focused on medication optimization. Two pain management interventions reduced the percentage of residents reporting pain not receiving analgesics by 50% to 60% (P = .03 and P < .001, respectively), and 1 improved analgesic appropriateness (P = .03). One reduced nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (P < .001) and another resulted in 3-fold higher odds of opioid prescription in advanced dementia [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-8.7]. One medication optimization intervention reduced NSAID prescription (P = .036), and another reduced as-needed opioid (95% CI 8.6-13.8) and NSAID prescription (95% CI 1.6-4.2).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Interventions involving prescribers and enhanced roles for pharmacists and nurses, with a component of education, are most effective at changing analgesic use or appropriateness. Interventions combining education and decision support are also promising. Medication review interventions can change analgesic prescription, although there is currently minimal evidence in relation to possible corresponding improvements in resident-related outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVES

To (1) describe the prescription and administration of regular and 'as required' (pro re nata [PRN]) analgesics in English care homes, (2) investigate individual and care home factors associated with analgesic use.

METHODS

We collected data (2014-2016) at 0-, 4-, and 12-months nested in a longitudinal cohort study of 86 English care homes about residents with diagnosed or probable dementia. We describe analgesics prescribed as regular or PRN medication, by class, and PRN administration. We explored individual differences (sociodemographic; dementia severity [Clinical Dementia Rating]), and care home differences (type; ownership; number of beds; dementia-registered/specialist; Care Quality Commission rating) in prescription and administration using multilevel regression models.

RESULTS

Data were available for 1483 residents. At baseline, 967 residents (67.9%) were prescribed analgesics: 426 residents (28.7%) prescribed regular analgesics and 670 (45.2%) prescribed PRN. Paracetamol was the most prescribed analgesic (56.7%), with PRN prescriptions more common than regular (39.7% vs. 16.6%). Across all study visits, 344 residents (mean = 41.9%) with a PRN prescription did not receive any analgesic in the 2 weeks prior to data collection. Male residents and those with severe dementia received fewer analgesics. Care homes differences in PRN administration were not explained by the modelled variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain management in English care homes largely relies on PRN paracetamol that is frequently prescribed but infrequently administered. Care homes differ in how often they administer PRN analgesics. Some care home residents particularly those with more severe dementia are likely to have untreated pain.

Interventions to optimize medication use in nursing homes: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Polypharmacy, medication errors and adverse drug events are frequent among nursing home residents. Errors can occur at any step of the medication use process. We aimed to review interventions aiming at optimization of any step of medication use in nursing homes.

METHODS

We narratively reviewed quantitative as well as qualitative studies, observational and experimental studies that described interventions, their effects as well as barriers and enablers to implementation. We prioritized recent studies with relevant findings for the European setting.

RESULTS

Many interventions led to improvements in medication use. However, because of outcome heterogeneity, comparison between interventions was difficult. Prescribing was the most studied aspect of medication use. At the micro-level, medication review, multidisciplinary work, and more recently, patient-centered care components dominated. At the macro-level, guidelines and legislation, mainly for specific medication classes (e.g., antipsychotics) were employed. Utilization of technology also helped improve medication administration. Several barriers and enablers were reported, at individual, organizational, and system levels.

CONCLUSION

Overall, existing interventions are effective in optimizing medication use. However there is a need for further European well-designed and large-scale evaluations of under-researched intervention components (e.g., health information technology, patient-centered approaches), specific medication classes (e.g., antithrombotic agents), and interventions targeting medication use aspects other than prescribing (e.g., monitoring). Further development and uptake of core outcome sets is required. Finally, qualitative studies on barriers and enablers for intervention implementation would enable theory-driven intervention design.

The prevalence of and exact indications for daily opioid use among aged home care clients with and without dementia

Background

The increasing trend of opioid use for non-malignant pain among older people has raised concerns about whether opioids are used for appropriate indications. On the other hand, pain in patients with dementia may be undertreated.

Aims

To examine the prevalence of and indications for daily opioid use among home care clients, and to determine opioid use differs between those with and without dementia.

Methods

All home care clients aged ≥ 65 years using opioids daily (n = 282) were identified based on their first Resident Assessment Instrument–Home Care assessment in 2014. Exact indications for opioid use, the opioid substance used, the median duration of use, and changes in opioid medication within 12 months from study entry were obtained from the electronic medical records.

Results

The prevalence of daily opioid use was 9.3%, and the median duration of use before the study entry was 357 days (interquartile range 126–719 days). The majority of clients continued to use opioids daily during the follow-up year. Vertebral osteoporotic fractures (21.6%), degenerative spinal disorders (20.9%), and osteoarthritis (20.6%) were the most common indications for opioid use. Buprenorphine was used more frequently in persons with dementia, but otherwise there were no differences between those with and without dementia.

Discussion and conclusions

Home care clients use opioids for long periods of time for pain related mostly to musculoskeletal disorders, although the effectiveness of long-term opioid use is not clear. The lack of effective or suitable options for management of pain might explain the situation.

The Use of Opioids and Antipsychotics in Elderly with Dementia - Have Opioids Replaced Antipsychotics in Treating Behavioral Symptoms in Dementia?

Background:

Opioids are used with increasing frequency. Elderly with dementia are prescribed opioids more frequent than elderly without. One possible explanation is that opioids may be used not only to treat pain but also behavioral symptoms.

Objective:

To test the hypothesis that strong opioid use, especially transdermal formulations, had increased, especially in elderly with dementia, in parallel with a decrease in antipsychotic use.

Methods:

Population-based cross-sectional study conducted using nationwide Danish registers with data on Denmark’s entire elderly population age ≥65 (2000: n = 802,106; 2015: n = 1,056,476). The registers were used to identify elderly with and without dementia and filled prescriptions for opioids and antipsychotics. Annual prevalence of opioid and antipsychotic use from 2000–2015 was calculated.

Results:

Prevalence of opioid use increased by 35% (24.2 to 32.5%) among elderly with dementia and by 13% among elderly without (14.9 to 16.8%) from 2000–2015. The disproportionate increase in opioid use among elderly with dementia was mainly driven by an increase in strong opioids (dementia: 11.7 to 23.1%; without dementia: 5.9 to 7.4%). Use of antipsychotics decreased during the same period (dementia: 31.3 to 19.3%; no dementia: 4.5 to 2.7%).

Conclusion:

From 2000–2015, use of opioids among the elderly increased with a disproportionately higher increase among elderly with dementia. The parallel decrease in the use of antipsychotics may suggest that opioids to some extent have replaced antipsychotics in managing behavioral symptoms, despite safety concerns and lack of evidence for effect of opioids. Future research should focus on potential risks associated with increased opioid use.

Trends in long-term opioid prescriptions for musculoskeletal conditions in Australian general practice: a national longitudinal study using MedicineInsight, 2012-2018

OBJECTIVE

Describe trends and patterns in long-term opioid prescriptions among adults with musculoskeletal conditions (MSK).

DESIGN

Interrupted time-series analysis based on an open cohort study.

SETTING

A representative sample of 402 Australian general practices contributing data to the MedicineInsight database.

PARTICIPANTS

811 174 patients aged 18+ years with an MSK diagnosis and three or more consultations in any two consecutive years between 2012 and 2018. Males represented 44.5% of the sample, 28.4% were 65+ years and 1.9% were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Annual prevalence and cumulative incidence (%) of long-term opioid prescribing (3+ prescriptions in 90 days) among patients with an MSK. Average duration of these episodes in each year between 2012 and 2018.

RESULTS

The prevalence of long-term opioid prescribing increased from 5.5% (95% CI 5.2 to 5.8) in 2012 to 9.1% (95% CI 8.8 to 9.7) in 2018 (annual change OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.09), but a slightly lower incidence was observed in 2018 (3.0% vs 3.6%-3.8% in other years; annual change OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 0.99). The incidence was between 37% and 52% higher among practices located in rural Australia or lower socioeconomic areas. Individual risk factors included increasing age (3.4 times higher among those aged 80+ years than the 18-34 years group in 2012, increasing to 4.8 times higher in 2018), identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (1.7-1.9 higher incidence than their peers), or living in disadvantaged areas (36%-57% more likely than among those living in wealthiest areas). Long-term opioid prescriptions lasted in average 287-301 days between 2012 and 2016, reducing to 229 days in 2017 and 140 days in 2018. A longer duration was observed in practices from more disadvantaged areas and females in all years, except in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

The continued rise in the prevalence of long-term opioid prescribing is of concern, despite a recent reduction in the incidence and duration of opioid management.

Regional Differences in Prescribing Patterns of Metamizole in Germany Based on Data from 70 Million Persons

The non-opioid analgesic metamizole (dipyrone) is commonly used in Germany despite its narrow indications and market withdrawal from several countries. In this study we analyzed prescribing patterns of metamizole focusing on regional differences. The source of data was the “Information system for health care data” which includes data from the statutory health insurance funds for about 70 million Germans. We received aggregated data of individuals with at least one metamizole prescription in 2010 as well as the number of prescribed packages by age, sex, state and district along with the number of insured persons in each stratum. We calculated prescription prevalence stratified by age, sex, state and district. Among 68.4 million insured persons (mean age: 43.6 years; 53.0% female) 5.5 million received at least one metamizole prescription (8.1%, overall 12.2 million packages). Prevalence increased with age, and women received metamizole more often than men. In adults (total prevalence: 9.4%), levels varied between 7.0% (Saxony) and 11.1% (Schleswig-Holstein), whereas on a district level use ranged from 4.3% to 14.3%. In 2010, one of 12 individuals received metamizole at least once. Noticeable were the large regional variations which certainly cannot be explained by patient-related factors.

Resident Challenges With Pain and Functional Limitations in Chinese Residential Care Facilities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pain and functional limitations can severely impede older adults' quality of life. In Chinese residential care facilities, limited research suggests that residents potentially have significant unmet care needs with pain and related functional limitations. Therefore, we aimed to explore residents' challenges and self-management strategies in these two areas. This knowledge is essential to developing care interventions to improve quality of care and quality of life in Chinese residential care facilities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted semi-structured open-ended interviews with residents (n = 21) in two facilities in eastern and central China and assessed their pain and functional status using self-report measures from Minimum Data Set 3.0. We applied descriptive statistics to the self-reported data and analyzed the interview data using thematic analysis by drawing on the Adaptive Leadership Framework. This framework proposes that individuals living with chronic conditions need to engage in work to address their complex health concerns and that they need support from the environment to facilitate problem-solving.

RESULTS

Residents described significant unmet care needs with pain and functional limitations. To address these care needs, they adopted a substantial number of self-management strategies. While doing so, they faced significant barriers, including service gaps and inadequate direct care.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings suggest further research to explore long-term care policy change that is needed to provide comprehensive health and medical services and adequate direct care in these facilities. The importance of establishing various types of long-term care facilities is also highlighted.

Pain in dementia

The ageing revolution is changing the composition of our society with more people becoming very old with higher risks for developing both pain and dementia. Pain is normally signaled by verbal communication, which becomes more and more deteriorated in people with dementia. Thus, these individuals unnecessarily suffer from manageable but unrecognized pain. Pain assessment in patients with dementia is a challenging endeavor, with scientific advancements quickly developing. Pain assessment tools and protocols (mainly observational scales) have been incorporated into national and international guidelines of pain assessment in aged individuals. To effectively assess pain, interdisciplinary collaboration (nurses, physicians, psychologists, computer scientists, and engineers) is essential. Pain management in this vulnerable population is also preferably done in an interdisciplinary setting. Nonpharmacological management programs have been predominantly tested in younger populations without dementia. However, many of them are relatively safe, have proven their efficacy, and therefore deserve a first place in pain management programs. Paracetamol is a relatively safe and effective first-choice analgesic. There are many safety issues regarding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and adjuvant analgesics in dementia patients. It is therefore recommended to monitor both pain and potential side effects regularly. More research is necessary to provide better guidance for pain management in dementia.

Pain Assessment, Management, and Impact Among Older Adults in Assisted Living

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence, pharmacologic management, and impact of pain on function, agitation, and resistiveness to care among assisted living residents.

DESIGN

This was a descriptive study.

DATA SOURCES

Baseline data from 260 residents in the second cohort of the study Dissemination and Implementation of Function Focused Care for Assisted Living Using the Evidence Integration Triangle.

REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS

Descriptive analyses for the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Visual Descriptor Scale (VDS), and use of medication for pain management and hypothesis testing using linear regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The majority of the sample was female (71%) and white (96%) with a mean age of 87 (standard deviation = 7). Fifty-two out of the 260 residents (20%) reported pain based on either the PAINAD or the VDS. Out of the total 260 residents, 75 (29%) received pain medication. Twenty-two out of the 52 individuals (42%) reporting pain were not getting pain medication. Controlling for age, gender, and cognition, the PAINAD was significantly associated with agitation, function, and resistiveness to care and the VDS was only associated with function.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of pain was low among participants based on the PAINAD or the VDS. Pain measured by the PAINAD was significantly associated with function, agitation, and resistiveness to care.

Commonly Initiated Opioids and Risk of Fracture Hospitalizations in United States Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to estimate the comparative safety of initiating commonly used opioids among older, long-stay United States nursing home residents with fracture hospitalizations.

METHODS

We conducted a new-user retrospective cohort study of nursing home residents initiating short-acting oxycodone, hydrocodone, or tramadol by merging the 2011-2013 Minimum Data Set 3.0 to Medicare hospitalization and pharmacy claims. Residents (≥ 65 years, no cancer or hospice use) contributed treatment episodes (> 120 days with no prior opioid claims) and were followed for 180 days until incident fracture hospitalization (hip, femur, humerus, pelvis, radius/ulna), death (competing risk), treatment changes (e.g., discontinuation), or administrative censoring. Competing risks models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios (HR_SD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Overall, 110,862 residents contributed 134,432 treatment episodes: 14,373 oxycodone; 69,182 hydrocodone; and 50,877 tramadol initiators. The incidences of fracture hospitalizations per 100 person-years were 9.4 (95% CI 7.5-11.7) for oxycodone, 7.9 (95% CI 7.1-8.8) for hydrocodone, and 5.0 (95% CI 4.3-5.7) for tramadol initiators. In weighted models, oxycodone initiators had a similar rate of fractures to hydrocodone initiators (HR_SD 1.08, 95% CI 0.79-1.48). Tramadol initiators had lower fracture rates than hydrocodone initiators (HR_SD 0.67, 95% CI 0.56-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

The lower rate of fractures that we documented among tramadol initiators compared with hydrocodone initiators is consistent, albeit attenuated compared with prior studies among community-dwelling older adults. However, overall fracture rates were lower than in community settings, potentially due to the limited risk of falling in this population with limited mobility.

The knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners to the assessment and management of pain in people with dementia

BACKGROUND

Pain in people with dementia is underdiagnosed and undertreated. General practitioners (GPs) play a pivotal role in dementia care but their perspectives on pain in people with dementia remains under-researched. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' knowledge and attitudes towards pain assessment and management in people with dementia.

METHODS

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. A questionnaire was adapted from a previous study and piloted with 5 GPs. The questionnaire was posted to a census sample of all GPs in Cork city and county in the southern region of Ireland. The questionnaire collected demographic information, responses to a series of Likert-type statements assessing GPs' knowledge and attitudes, and provided an opportunity for the GP to give qualitative feedback on their experiences of managing pain in dementia. SPSS v25 was used for statistical analysis. Qualitative responses were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Of the 320 questionnaires posted, 157 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate of 49%). The sample was representative of GPs nationally in terms of years in GP practice and practice location. Over two-thirds (108/157) of respondents had a nursing home commitment. Only 10% of respondents (16/157) were aware of any dementia-specific pain assessment tools. The larger the nursing home commitment of the GP the more likely they were to be familiar with these tools (p = 0.048). The majority of respondents (113/157) believed people with dementia could not self-report pain. Respondents were uncertain about the safety of using opioid medications to treat pain in people with dementia with only 51.6% agreeing that they were safe. The qualitative comments highlighted the importance the GPs placed on surrogate reports of pain, GPs' uncertainty regarding the value of formal pain assessment tools and the challenges caused by under-resourcing in general practice.

CONCLUSION

This study has highlighted aspects of pain assessment and management in dementia that GPs find challenging. Guidance on pain assessment and management in people with dementia do not appear to be translating into clinical practice. The findings will inform educational interventions being developed by our research team as part of the implementation of the Irish national dementia strategy. The knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners to the assessment and management of pain in people with dementia.