Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations. CONCLUSIONS: There are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence

Towards improved decision support in the assessment and management of pain for people with dementia in hospital: a systematic meta-review and observational study

BackgroundPain and dementia are common in older people, and impaired cognitive abilities make it difficult for them to communicate their pain. Pain, if poorly managed, impairs health and well-being. Accurate pain assessment in this vulnerable group is challenging for hospital staff, but essential for appropriate management. Robust methods for identifying, assessing and managing pain are needed.Aims and objectivesTwo studies were undertaken to inform the development of a decision support tool to aid hospital staff in the recognition, assessment and management of pain. The first was a meta-review of systematic reviews of observational pain assessment instruments with three objectives: (1) to identify the tools available to assess pain in adults with dementia; (2) to identify in which settings they were used and with what patient populations; and (3) to assess their reliability, validity and clinical utility. The second was a multisite observational study in hospitals with four objectives: (1) to identify information currently used by clinicians when detecting and managing pain in patients with dementia; (2) to explore existing processes for detecting and managing pain in these patients; (3) to identify the role (actual/potential) of carers in this process; and (4) to explore the organisational context in which health professionals operate. Findings also informed development of health economics data collection forms to evaluate the implementation of a new decision support intervention in hospitals.MethodsFor the meta-review of systematic reviews, 12 databases were searched. Reviews of observational pain assessment instruments that provided psychometric data were included. Papers were quality assessed and data combined using narrative synthesis. The observational study used an ethnographic approach in 11 wards in four UK hospitals. This included non-participant observation of 31 patients, audits of patient records, semistructured interviews with 52 staff and four carers, informal conversations with staff and carers and analysis of ward documents and policies. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken by the project team.ResultsData from eight systematic reviews including 28 tools were included in the meta-review. Most tools showed moderate to good reliability, but information about validity, feasibility and clinical utility was scarce. The observational study showed complex ward cultures and routines, with variations in time spent with patients, communication patterns and management practices. Carer involvement was rare. No pain decision support tools were observed in practice. Information about pain was elicited in different ways, at different times, by different health-care staff and recorded in separate documents. Individual staff made sense of patients’ pain by creating their own ‘overall picture’ from available information.LimitationsGrey literature and non-English-language papers were excluded from the meta-review. Sample sizes in the observational study were smaller than planned owing to poor documentation of patients’ dementia diagnoses, gatekeeping by staff and difficulties in gaining consent/assent. Many patients had no or geographically distant carers, or a spouse who was too unwell and/or reluctant to participate.ConclusionsNo single observational pain scale was clearly superior to any other. The traditional linear concept of pain being assessed, treated and reassessed by single individuals did not ‘fit’ with clinical reality. A new approach enabling effective communication among patients, carers and staff, centralised recording of pain-related information, and an extended range of pain management interventions is proposed [Pain And Dementia Decision Support (PADDS)]. This was not tested with users, but a follow-on study aims to codesign PADDS with carers and clinicians, then introduce education on staff/patient/carer communications and use of PADDS within a structured implementation plan. PADDS will need to be tested in differing ward contexts