Evaluation of a Behavioral Assessment Tool for the Individual Unable to Self-report Pain

Altered Behavioral and Autonomic Pain Responses in Alzheimer's Disease Are Associated with Dysfunctional Affective, Self-Reflective and Salience Network Resting-State Connectivity

While pain behaviors are increased in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients compared to healthy seniors (HS) across multiple disease stages, autonomic responses are reduced with advancing AD. To better understand the neural mechanisms underlying these phenomena, we undertook a controlled cross-sectional study examining behavioral (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia, PAINAD scores) and autonomic (heart rate, HR) pain responses in 24 HS and 20 AD subjects using acute pressure stimuli. Resting-state fMRI was utilized to investigate how group connectivity differences were related to altered pain responses. Pain behaviors (slope of PAINAD score change and mean PAINAD score) were increased in patients vs.

CONTROLS

Autonomic measures (HR change intercept and mean HR change) were reduced in severe vs. mildly affected AD patients. Group functional connectivity differences associated with greater pain behavior reactivity in patients included: connectivity within a temporal limbic network (TLN) and between the TLN and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC); between default mode network (DMN) subcomponents; between the DMN and ventral salience network (vSN). Reduced HR responses within the AD group were associated with connectivity changes within the DMN and vSN-specifically the precuneus and vmPFC. Discriminant classification indicated HR-related connectivity within the vSN to the vmPFC best distinguished AD severity. Thus, altered behavioral and autonomic pain responses in AD reflects dysfunction of networks and structures subserving affective, self-reflective, salience and autonomic regulation.

Effect of therapeutic massage on pain in patients with dementia

Introduction

The aim was to investigate whether therapeutic massage was effective in relieving pain in elderly residents with dementia.

Methods

A randomized controlled study was conducted in an aged care facility. Ten participants with dementia or advanced dementia were allocated to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group received 10 min of massage (effleurage, kneading, and trigger point therapy) four times per week for 4 weeks. The Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scale was used as the outcome measure.

Results

No significant changes in mean outcome measure scores were found post intervention (Intervention mean = 5.0 ± 3.49; Control mean = 5.2 ± 3.49: t(8) = 0.09, p = 0.93). However, the Intervention Group had a greater magnitude of change (1.200 ± 1.78) when compared to the control group (0.800 ± 2.16).

Conclusion

Therapeutic massage may provide a useful adjunct to the current pain management plan of patients with dementia.

Pain Assessment Strategies in Home Care and Nursing Homes in Mid-Norway: A Cross-sectional Survey

The prevalence of pain ranges from 27.8% to 86.5% in nursing homes and 42% to 50% in home care. Pain assessment is the first step toward effective pain management. The aim of this study was to explore the use of pain assessment strategies (verbal, numeric, and observation rating scales and standardized questions) in home care and nursing homes. The study was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. Health care providers who were responsible for the patients' medications replied to a questionnaire. In-home care and nursing homes in 11 randomly selected municipalities in Mid-Norway were included. Three hundred ninety-two individuals were included in this study (70% response rate): 271 (69%) from nursing homes and 121 (31%) from home care. The respondents working in home care had a higher educational level than those in working in nursing homes. Pain assessment instruments were not used frequently in nursing homes and home care. Verbal and numeric rating scales were used significantly more frequently in home care than in nursing homes. Registered nurses (RNs) in nursing homes used standardized questions significantly more often than did RNs in home care. RNs and social educators in home care self-reported less competence in treating the patients' total pain experience than did those in nursing homes. Workplace (working in home care) and regular training in the use of pain assessment tools explained more than 20% of the variation in the use of pain assessment tools. Regular training in the use of pain assessment tools is needed for health care workers in home care and nursing homes.

Instruments for assessing pain in persons with severe dementia

Through an integrative literature review involving the CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, PubMed databases, tools available in the literature for assessing pain in individuals with severe dementia were identified along with versions validated for use in Brazil. We found 1501 relevant articles which, after selection of abstracts and full reading, yielded a final sample of 33 articles. The analysis enabled the identification of 12 instruments: ABBEY PAIN SCALE; ADD; CNPI; CPAT; DOLOPLUS-2; MOBID and MOBID-2; MPS; NOPPAIN; PACSLAC; PADE; PAINAD and PAINE. Despite the wide variety of tools for assessing pain in individuals with severe dementia worldwide, it was observed that only four are available in Portuguese, of which two are culturally adapted for Brazilian Portuguese (NOPPAIN and PACSLAC) and two validated for Portuguese of Portugal (DOLOPLUS and PAINAD), pointing to the need for further validation of instruments for use in Brazil.

The use of observational scales to monitor symptom control and depth of sedation in patients requiring palliative sedation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation is the intentional lowering of consciousness of a patient in the last phase of life to relieve suffering from refractory symptoms such as pain, delirium and dyspnoea.

AIM

In this systematic review, we evaluated the use of monitoring scales to assess the degree of control of refractory symptoms and/or the depth of the sedation.

DESIGN

A database search of PubMed and Embase was performed up to January 2010 using the search terms 'palliative sedation' OR 'terminal sedation'.

DATA SOURCES

Retro- and prospective studies as well as reviews and guidelines containing information about monitoring of palliative sedation, written in the English, German or Dutch language were included.

RESULTS

The search yielded 264 articles of which 30 were considered relevant. Most studies focused on monitoring refractory symptoms (pain, fatigue or delirium) or the level of awareness to control the level of sedation. Four prospective and one retrospective study used scales validated in other settings: the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, the Visual Analogue Scale, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, the Communication Capacity Scale and Agitation Distress Scale. Only the Community Capacity Scale was partially validated for use in a palliative sedation setting. One guideline described the use of a scale validated in another setting.

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of studies reported the use of observational scales to monitor the effect of palliative sedation. Future studies should be focused on establishing proper instruments, most adequate frequency and timing of assessment, and interdisciplinary evaluation of sedation depth and symptom control for palliative sedation.

Which score most likely represents pain on the observational PAINAD pain scale for patients with dementia?

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine a cutoff score for the observational Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), to adequately assess pain in clinical nursing home practice and research.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We used data from multiple sources. We performed a literature review on PAINAD, performed secondary data analysis of a study examining psychometric properties of PAINAD in nursing home patients with dementia, and performed another study in nursing home patients with dementia specifically aimed at determining a cutoff score for PAINAD.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with dementia in long term care facilities.

MEASUREMENTS

We related PAINAD scores (range 0 to 10) to (1) self-reported and proxy-reported pain by global clinical judgment and (2) scores on another pain assessment instrument (DOLOPLUS-2), and (3) we compared scores between painful and supposedly less painful conditions.

RESULTS

Findings from this study showed that a cutoff value of 2 should serve as a trigger for a trial with pain treatment. Although the majority of patients scoring 1 or 0 were not in pain, pain could be ruled out.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of multiple available data sources, we recommend that a PAINAD score of 2 or more can be used as an indicator of probable pain. A score of 1 is a sign to be attentive to possible pain. Future work may focus on cutoff scores for the presence of pain and severe pain in other frequently used pain tools, and on further development of methodology to assess cutoff scores.

The utility of PAINAD in assessing pain in a UK population with severe dementia

OBJECTIVE

Studies suggest that pain is under-recognized and under-treated in those with severe dementia. Identifying pain is the first step in its effective management. Few studies have investigated the utility of behavioural pain tools in those with advanced dementia.

METHODS

Participants were nursing home residents with advanced dementia who were observed on three occasions using a pain assessment tool (PAINAD). Following further assessment, an appropriate management plan was formulated for those thought to be in pain. Participants who scored above the cutoff (two) on the PAINAD scale, but were felt not to be in pain, formed the false positive group. The pain and false positive groups were reassessed at 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine participants completed the study, with 39 participants scoring above two on the PAINAD. Of these, only 13 were assessed as being in pain. The other 26 participants who scored above the cutoff on PAINAD were not felt to be in pain. Instead, their behaviour had a psychosocial explanation, often to do with a lack of understanding as to what was happening to them. The sensitivity of PAINAD was 92%. In those with pain, a significant decrease was demonstrated in the PAINAD scores on intervention following treatment for pain (p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

PAINAD is a sensitive tool for detecting pain in people with advanced dementia, but has a high false positive rate, frequently detecting psychosocial distress rather than pain. PAINAD can be used to assess whether pain management strategies have been successful.

Comparison of two pain assessment tools in nonverbal critical care patients

It is recommended that patient's self-report of pain should be obtained as often as possible as the "gold standard." Unfortunately in critical care, many factors can alter verbal communication with patients, making pain assessment more difficult. Scientific advances in understanding pain mechanisms, multidimensional methods of pain assessment, and analgesic pharmacology have improved pain management strategies. However, pain assessment for nonverbal patients in critical care continues to present a challenge for clinicians and researchers. The purpose of this study was to compare the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) scores for assessment in nonverbal critical care patients. A descriptive, comparative, prospective design was used in this study. A convenience sample of 100 critical care, nonverbal, adult patients of varying medical diagnoses who required pain evaluation were assessed with the PAINAD and CPOT scales. Data were collected over a 6-month period in all critical care areas. Observations of pain assessments for nonverbal patients who required pain evaluation were recorded on the PAINAD and the CPOT successively. Internal consistency reliability for the PAINAD was 0.80 and for the CPOT 0.72. Limits of agreement indicated that there was no difference in PAINAD and CPOT scores for assessing pain in nonverbal patients in critical care. Further research in the area of pain assessment for nonverbal patients in critical care is needed.

Comparing the psychometric properties of the Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Behaviors (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAIN-AD) instruments

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare the psychometric properties of two common observational pain assessment tools used in persons with dementia.

DESIGN

In a cross-sectional descriptive study nursing home (NH) residents were videotaped at rest and during a structured movement procedure. Following one training session and one practice session, two trained graduate nursing research assistants independently scored the tapes using the two pain observation tools.

SETTING

Fourteen NHs in Western Washington State participating in a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to enhance pain assessment and management.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty participants with moderate to severe pain were identified by nursing staff or chosen based on the pain items from the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment.

MEASURES

Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), demographic and pain-related data (Minimum Data Set), nursing assistant reports of participants' usual pain intensity, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale.

RESULTS

Internal consistency for both tools was good except for the CNPI at rest for one rater. Inter-rater reliability for pain presence was fair (K = 0.25 for CNPI with movement; K = 0.31 for PAINAD at rest) to moderate (K = 0.43 for CNPI at rest; K = 0.54 for PAINAD with movement). There were significant differences in mean CNPI and PAINAD scores at rest and during movement, providing support for construct validity. However, both tools demonstrated marked floor effects, particularly when participants were at rest.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite earlier studies supporting the reliability and validity of the CNPI and the PAINAD, findings from the current study indicate that these measures warrant further study with clinical users, should be used cautiously both in research and clinical settings and only as part of a comprehensive approach to pain assessment.