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.

[Promotion of oral health in nursing-An interprofessional expert standard]. / Förderung der Mundgesundheit in der Pflege ­ ein interprofessioneller Expertenstandard.

BACKGROUND: People in need of care or with severe disability have a worse oral health status compared to people without these needs. The increasing number of older people who are able to keep their own teeth requires specific steps to support oral health. Whereas in 1997 1 in 4 people between 65 and 74 years of age was toothless, in 2016 this figure had risen to 1 in 8. Special challenges in oral care arise for older people and people with dementia. The management requires an interprofessional approach. OBJECTIVE: Interprofessional development of an expert standard for the promotion of oral health by nurses and a focus on older people. METHODS: The expert standard is based on a systematic literature analysis. Based on this, members of an interprofessional expert working group consisting of nurses, dentists and a representative of those affected formulated recommendations to promote oral health of people in need of care. RESULTS: The interprofessional approach defines the selection of the guiding questions for the literature search, the evaluation of the literature and the formulation of the recommendations. Interventions to maintain and promote oral health were identified for the guiding questions of the expert standard, for example, in cases of oral fungal diseases, mucositis, gingivitis or accompanying symptoms, such as dry mouth and pain. DISCUSSION: Interventions to promote oral health of people in need of care or with severe disability could be focused more deeply within the nursing profession and formulated by an interprofessional group to guide their actions.

Caesarean Section. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/084, June 2020).

Purpose This is an official S3-guideline of the German Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Austrian Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (ÖGGG) and the Swiss Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (SGGG). The guideline contains evidence-based information and recommendations on indications, complications, methods and care associated with delivery by caesarean section for all medical specialties involved as well as for pregnant women. Methods This guideline has adapted information and recommendations issued in the NICE Caesarean Birth guideline. This guideline also considers additional issues prioritised by the Cochrane Institute and the Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM). The evaluation of evidence was based on the system developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A multi-part nominal group process moderated by the AWMF was used to compile this S3-level guideline. Recommendations Recommendations on consultations, indications and the process of performing a caesarean section as well as the care provided to the mother and neonate were drawn up.

An Evidence-Based Guideline on Pain Assessment in Nursing Homes For Residents and Informal Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are often affected by pain. Pain assessment aims to determine pain intensity and quality. An evidence-based guideline on pain assessment in nursing homes was developed to support residents and informal caregivers in archiving an adequate pain assessment prerequisite to pain treatment. AIM: The residents' guideline presents key recommendations that is comprehensible and accessible to residents and informal carers. DESIGN: We conducted a content analysis. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Therefore, all recommendations of an evidence-based guideline for pain assessment in nursing home were evaluated on relevance for supporting residents' decision-making process. METHODS: Two researchers conducted the content analysis independently and as a result, 29 recommendations could be included. In addition, representatives of a support-group organization for patients with pain validated the derived recommendations. RESULTS: The present residents' guideline of pain assessment consists of nine thematic categories, written in laymen's terms to enable older persons to make informed choices and optimizing their own pain management process. CONCLUSIONS: The Guideline is available in print format and ready for implementation to enhance the effects on maintaining the physical and psychological well-being and optimal care of older adults in Nursing Homes.

Pain Assessment for Older Persons in Nursing Home Care: An Evidence-Based Practice Guideline.

Up to 80% of nursing home residents are affected by pain. Pain assessment aims to determine pain intensity, quality, and course of pain to underpin diagnostic decision making. In the nursing home population, pain assessment is frequently compromised by cognitive impairment. Characteristics of the nursing home setting, such as resident's age, staff skill mix, and overall aims of the care provided, also need to be taken into account. Therefore, an interdisciplinary evidence-based clinical practice guideline for pain assessment in the nursing home setting was developed. A systematic literature search was carried out covering publications between 2003 and 2015. Thirty-nine studies were included in the preparation of this guideline, supplemented by 12 international reference guidelines. Recommendations were subjected to a structured consensus-finding process with representatives from 37 scientific and professional organizations and patient representatives. The guideline underwent independent peer review before finalization. It comprises 62 recommendations that are grouped into 4 chapters: (1) context of pain assessment in nursing home care; (2) screening; (3) focused assessment; and (4) reassessment/monitoring of pain. Main recommendations stipulate that clinicians should assess the patient's ability to provide self-report of pain when screening for pain and that each resident should be screened for the presence of pain. A focused assessment of pain, performed during rest and activities, should include pain intensity, changed behaviors, general mobility, pain history, comorbidities, and pain medication. Pain should be re-assessed at regular intervals using the same instruments that were used for the focused assessment. Guideline development demonstrated that many aspects of pain assessment in older persons have not received adequate research attention so far. Available studies predominantly possess only low levels of evidence. Therefore, research into this area needs to be systematically developed to address questions of clinical relevance to support patient care.

[Standardised pain assessment in cognitively impaired nursing home residents: Comparing the use of assessment tools in dementia care units and in integrated care units]. / Die standardisierte Schmerzerfassung bei Menschen mit kognitiven Einschränkungen ­ ein Vergleich der Nutzung von Assessmentinstrumenten in Demenzwohnbereichen und integrativen Wohnbereichen in stationären Pflegeeinrichtungen.

BACKGROUND: A large number of nursing home residents with cognitive impairments (CI) suffer from chronic pain, which is also discussed as a reason for challenging behavior. To assess pain in people with severe CI, the use of an observational pain instrument is recommended; for people without or with mild CI the gold standard is a self-rating instrument. It is unknown whether in German nursing homes pain assessment in residents with severe CI is actually conducted using observational instruments and which instruments are used. Because of different resident structure we assume that in dementia care units observational pain instruments are more often used than in integrated care units. The aim of this study was to investigate the conduction of pain assessments and the instruments used in both types of care units. METHODS: We conducted an observational study based on standardized data collection. A questionnaire was used to elicit whether pain assessment had been performed and what kind of instrument had been used last time. The cognitive status was also assessed. Based on these data, we determined for each resident whether a self- or proxy-rating instrument had been applied, considering his or her cognitive status. Afterwards, the resident data were aggregated on a care unit level. The use of single instruments was calculated in percentages. Differences between dementia care units and integrated care units were investigated with descriptive statistics and an independent t-test. A mixed-effects binary regression model was used to adjust for cluster effects. RESULTS: The analysis sample consisted of n = 1,397 participating residents living in n = 75 care units (n = 30 dementia care units; n = 45 integrated care units). In the dementia care units, a mean of 82 % of residents with severe cognitive impairments was assessed using an observational proxy-rating assessment instrument; in the traditional integrated care units a percentage of 42 % was calculated. In the dementia care units, the median percentage of residents with severe cognitive impairments who were assessed with a self-rating instrument was below 10 %; in integrated care units it was 51 %. The differences were statistically significant. A mixed regression model confirmed the results. In the majority of dementia care units a single pain assessment tool was used for all residents; in 18 of 30 dementia care units this was a proxy-rated observational instrument. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that pain assessment in cognitively impaired patients is suboptimal in many integrated care units because the nurses use inappropriate instruments. Also, they confirm the results of previous studies by demonstrating that instruments are used in clinical practice that are not recommended because their German-language versions are not validated. Since valid pain assessment is a prerequisite to appropriate pain treatment, we may assume that in many residents this is also not carried out as recommended. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Especially in integrated units, a defined and consented method of pain assessment is important because of the differences in their residents' cognitive and verbal abilities. Appropriate education may help to improve this process.

Drug-based pain management for people with dementia after hip or pelvic fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that people with dementia do not receive the same amount of analgesia after a hip or pelvic fracture compared to those without cognitive impairment. However, there is no systematic review that shows to what extent drug-based pain management is performed for people with dementia following a hip or pelvic fracture. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and analyse studies that investigate drug-based pain management for people with dementia with a hip or pelvic fracture in all settings. Treatment could be surgical or conservative. We also analysed study designs, methods and variables, as well as which assessments were applied to measure pain management and mental status. METHOD/DESIGN: The development of this systematic review protocol was guided by the PRISMA-P requirements, which were taken into consideration during the review procedures. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge and ScienceDirect were searched. Studies published up to January 2016 were included. The data extraction, content and quantitative descriptive analysis were carried out systematically, followed by a critical appraisal. RESULTS: Eight of the 13 included studies focusing on patient data showed that people with dementia received less drug-based pain management than people without cognitive impairment. Four studies based on surveys of healthcare professionals stated that cognitive impairment is a major barrier for effective pain management. There was heterogeneity regarding the assessment of the mental status and the pain assessment of the patients. The assessment of the drugs administered in all of the studies working with patient data was achieved through chart reviews. CONCLUSION: People with dementia do not seem to receive the same amount of opioid analgesics after hip fracture as people without cognitive impairment. There is need to enhance pain assessment and management for these patients. Future research should pay more attention to the use of the appropriate items for assessing cognitive impairment and pain in people with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered at Prospero ( CRD42016037309 ); on 11 April 2016, and the systematic review protocol was published (Syst Rev. 5(1):1, 2016).

Experiences of nursing staff using dementia-specific case conferences in nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Dementia specific-case conferences with the Innovative dementia oriented assessment tool (CC-IdA) could be an important tool with which to analyze and manage challenging behavior. The study gives an insight into nursing staff' experiences using CC-IdA in dementia care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 nursing teams from 12 nursing homes alongside a quasi-experimental study. In addition, observational field notes were taken. Interviews and observational field notes were analyzed using the thematic content analysis. RESULTS: CC-IdA contributed to a reflective handling of challenging behavior, to changes in the communication with residents and to the identification of potentially triggers of challenging behavior. Factors influencing the implementation of CC-IdA were among others a lack of moderation skills, limited knowledge of dementia, a lack of biographical information and a lack of involvement by other professionals. CONCLUSIONS: CC-IdA represents an important tool in the management of challenging behavior of people with dementia. For the successful implementation of these case conferences, both structural and personal resources are needed.