Pain assessment and pain treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current literature on pain assessment and pain treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia. METHOD: A comprehensive systematic search of the literature with narrative synthesis was conducted. Eight major bibliographic databases were searched in October 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were sequentially screened. Standardised data extraction and quality appraisal exercises were conducted. RESULTS: 32 studies were included in the review, 11 reporting findings on pain assessment tools or methods, and 27 reporting findings on treatments for pain. In regard to pain assessment, a large proportion of people with moderate to severe dementia were unable to complete a self-report pain instrument. Pain was more commonly reported by informal caregivers than the person with dementia themselves. Limited evidence was available for pain focused behavioural observation assessment. In regard to pain treatment, paracetamol use was more common in community-dwelling people with dementia compared to people without dementia. However, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used less. For stronger analgesics, community-dwelling people with dementia were more likely to receive strong opioids (e.g. fentanyl) than people without dementia. CONCLUSION: This review identifies a dearth of high quality studies exploring pain assessment and/or treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia, not least into non-pharmacological interventions. The consequences of this lack of evidence, given the current and projected prevalence of the disease, are very serious and require urgent redress. In the meantime, clinicians should adopt a patient and caregiver centred, multi-dimensional, longitudinal approach to pain assessment and pain treatment for this population

The challenge of pain identification, assessment, and management in people with dementia: a qualitative study

Background Painful conditions are common in older adults, including people with dementia. The symptoms associated with dementia (for example, diminished language capacity, memory impairment, and behavioural changes), however, may lead to the suboptimal identification, assessment, and management of pain. Research has yet to qualitatively explore pain management for community-dwelling people with dementia. Aim To explore pain identification, assessment, and management for community-dwelling people with dementia. Design & setting A qualitative study was undertaken, set in England. Method Semi-structured interviews took place with people with dementia, family caregivers, GPs, and old-age psychiatrists. Data were analysed thematically. Results Interviews were conducted with eight people with dementia, nine family caregivers, nine GPs, and five old-age psychiatrists. Three themes were identified that related to pain identification and assessment: gathering information to identify pain; the importance of knowing the person; and the use of pain assessment tools. A further three themes were identified that related to pain management: non-drug strategies; concerns related to analgesic medications; and responsibility of the caregiver to manage pain. Conclusion Identifying and assessing the pain experienced by people with dementia was challenging. Most people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals supported non-drug strategies to manage pain. The minimal concerns associated with non-drug strategies contrasted the multifactorial concerns associated with analgesic treatment for people with dementia. Given the complexity of pain identification, assessment, and management, primary care should work together with family caregivers and community services, with case finding for pain being considered in all assessment and management plans

Comparative differences in musculoskeletal pain consultation and analgesic prescription for people with dementia

Painful musculoskeletal conditions are common in older adults, however pain identification, assessment, and management are reported to be suboptimal for people with dementia. Adequate pain management is an integral aspect of care for people with dementia to prevent or delay negative outcomes, such as behavioural and psychological changes, emergency department attendance, and premature nursing home admission. This study aims to examine musculoskeletal consultations and analgesic prescriptions for people with dementia compared to people without dementia. A dementia cohort (n=36,582) and matched cohort were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (a UK wide primary care database). Period prevalence for musculoskeletal consultations and analgesic prescriptions were described and logistic regression applied to estimate associations between dementia and musculoskeletal consultation/analgesic prescription from time of dementia diagnosis to 5 years post diagnosis. People with dementia had a consistently (over time) lower prevalence and odds of musculoskeletal consultation and analgesic prescription compared to people without dementia. The evidence suggests that pain management may be suboptimal for people with dementia. These results highlight the need to understand more about practical methods to increase awareness of pain and to employ better methods of pain assessment, evaluation of treatment response and acceptable and effective management for people with dementia, in primary care

Population trends in the incidence and initial management of osteoarthritis : age-period-cohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 1992-2013

To determine recent trends in the rate and management of new cases of OA presenting to primary healthcare using UK nationally representative data. Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink we identified new cases of diagnosed OA and clinical OA (including OA-relevant peripheral joint pain in those aged over 45 years) using established code lists. For both definitions we estimated annual incidence density using exact person-time, and undertook descriptive analysis and age-period-cohort modelling. Demographic characteristics and management were described for incident cases in each calendar year. Sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the findings to key assumptions. Between 1992 and 2013 the annual age-sex standardized incidence rate for clinical OA increased from 29.2 to 40.5/1000 person-years. After controlling for period effects, the consultation incidence of clinical OA was higher for successive cohorts born after the mid-1950s, particularly women. In contrast, with the exception of hand OA, we observed no increase in the incidence of diagnosed OA: 8.6/1000 person-years in 2004 down to 6.3 in 2013. In 2013, 16.4% of clinical OA cases had an X-ray referral. While NSAID prescriptions fell from 2004, the proportion prescribed opioid analgesia rose markedly (0.1% of diagnosed OA in 1992 to 1.9% in 2013). Rising rates of clinical OA, continued use of plain radiography and a shift towards opioid analgesic prescription are concerning. Our findings support the search for policies to tackle this common problem that promote joint pain prevention while avoiding excessive and inappropriate health care

A cross sectional study of requests for knee radiographs from primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knee pain is the commonest pain complaint amongst older adults in general practice. General Practitioners (GPs) may use x rays when managing knee pain, but little information exists regarding this process. Our objectives, therefore, were to describe the information GPs provide when ordering knee radiographs in older people, to assess the association between a clinical diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) and the presence of radiographic knee OA, and to investigate the clinical content of the corresponding radiologists' report.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross sectional study of GP requests for knee radiographs and their matched radiologists' reports from a local radiology department. Cases, aged over 40, were identified during an 11-week period. The clinical content of the GPs' requests and radiologists' reports was analysed. Associations of radiologists' reporting of i) osteoarthritis, ii) degenerative disease and iii) individual radiographic features of OA, with patient characteristics and clinical details on the GPs' requests, were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study identified 136 cases with x ray requests from 79 GPs and 11 reporting radiologists. OA was identified clinically in 19 (14%) of the requests, and queried in another 31 (23%). The main clinical descriptor was pain in 119 cases (88%). Radiologists' reported OA in 22% of cases, and the features of OA were mentioned in 63%. Variation in reporting existed between radiologists. The commonest description was joint space narrowing in 52 reports (38%). There was an apparent although non significant increase in the reporting of knee OA when the GP had diagnosed or queried it (OR 1.95; 95% CI 0.76, 5.00).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The features of radiographic OA are commonly reported in those patients over 40 whom GPs send for x ray. If OA is clinically suspected, radiologists appear to be more likely to report its presence. Further research into alternative models of referral and reporting might identify a more appropriate imaging policy in knee disorders for primary care.</p

Trends in long-term opioid prescribing in primary care patients with musculoskeletal conditions: an observational database study

Long-term opioids may benefit patients with chronic pain but have also been linked to harmful outcomes. In the United Kingdom, the predominant source of opioids is primary care prescription. The objective was to examine changes in the incidence, length, and opioid potency of long-term prescribing episodes for musculoskeletal conditions in UK primary care (2002-2013). This was an observational database study (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 190 practices). Participants (=18 years) were prescribed an opioid for a musculoskeletal condition (no opioid prescribed in previous 6 months), and issued =2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days (long-term episode). Opioids were divided into short- and long-acting noncontrolled and controlled drugs. Annual incidence of long-term opioid episodes was determined, and for those still in a long-term episode, the percentage of patients prescribed each type 1 to 2 years, and >2 years after initiation. Annual denominator population varied from 1.25 to 1.38 m. A total of 76,416 patients started 1 long-term episode. Annual long-term episode incidence increased (2002-2009) by 38% (42.4-58.3 per 10,000 person-years), remaining stable to 2011, then decreasing slightly to 55.8/10,000 (2013). Patients prescribed long-acting controlled opioids within the first 90 days of long-term use increased from 2002 to 2013 (2.3%-9.9%). In those still in a long-term opioid episode (>2 years), long-acting controlled opioid prescribing increased from 3.5% to 22.6%. This study has uniquely shown an increase in prescribing long-term opioids to 2009, gradually decreasing from 2011 in the United Kingdom. The trend was towards increased prescribing of controlled long-acting opioids and earlier use. Further research into the risks and benefits of opioids is required

Functional outcome in older adults with joint pain and comorbidity: design of a prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Joint pain is a highly prevalent condition in the older population. Only a minority of the older adults consult the general practitioner for joint pain, and during consultation joint pain is often poorly recognized and treated, especially when other co-existing chronic conditions are involved. Therefore, older adults with joint pain and comorbidity may have a higher risk of poor functional outcome and decreased quality of life (QoL), and possibly need more attention in primary care. The main purpose of the study is to explore functioning in older adults with joint pain and comorbidity, in terms of mobility, functional independence and participation and to identify possible predictors of poor functional outcome. The study will also identify predictors of decreased QoL. The results will be used to develop prediction models for the early identification of subgroups at high risk of poor functional outcome and decreased QoL. This may contribute to better targeting of treatment and to more effective health care in this population.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study has been designed as a prospective cohort study, with measurements at baseline and after 6, 12 and 18 months. For the recruitment of 450 patients, 25 general practices will be approached. Patients are eligible for participation if they are 65 years or older, have at least two chronic conditions and report joint pain on most days. Data will be collected using various methods (i.e. questionnaires, physical tests, patient interviews and focus groups). We will measure different aspects of functioning (e.g. mobility, functional independence and participation) and QoL. Other measurements concern possible predictors of functioning and QoL (e.g. pain, co-existing chronic conditions, markers for frailty, physical performance, psychological factors, environmental factors and individual factors). Furthermore, health care utilization, health care needs and the meaning and impact of joint pain will be investigated from an older person's perspective.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this paper, we describe the protocol of a prospective cohort study in Dutch older adults with joint pain and comorbidity and discuss the potential strengths and limitations of the study.</p

Development and validation of prediction models to estimate risk of primary total hip and knee replacements using data from the UK : two prospective open cohorts using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Altres ajuts: This study was funded by NIHR School for Primary Care Research Funding Round 9 (Project No: 258) and by Public Health England. CDM is funded by the NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands, the NIHR School for Primary Care Research and a NIHR Research Professorship in General Practice (NIHR-RP-2014-04-026). JE is a NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, Public Health England, or the Department of Health. This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR).The ability to efficiently and accurately predict future risk of primary total hip and knee replacement (THR/TKR) in earlier stages of osteoarthritis (OA) has potentially important applications. We aimed to develop and validate two models to estimate an individual's risk of primary THR and TKR in patients newly presenting to primary care. We identified two cohorts of patients aged ≥40 years newly consulting hip pain/OA and knee pain/OA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Candidate predictors were identified by systematic review, novel hypothesis-free 'Record-Wide Association Study' with replication, and panel consensus. Cox proportional hazards models accounting for competing risk of death were applied to derive risk algorithms for THR and TKR. Internal-external cross-validation (IECV) was then applied over geographical regions to validate two models. 45 predictors for THR and 53 for TKR were identified, reviewed and selected by the panel. 301 052 and 416 030 patients newly consulting between 1992 and 2015 were identified in the hip and knee cohorts, respectively (median follow-up 6 years). The resultant model C-statistics is 0.73 (0.72, 0.73) and 0.79 (0.78, 0.79) for THR (with 20 predictors) and TKR model (with 24 predictors), respectively. The IECV C-statistics ranged between 0.70-0.74 (THR model) and 0.76-0.82 (TKR model); the IECV calibration slope ranged between 0.93-1.07 (THR model) and 0.92-1.12 (TKR model). Two prediction models with good discrimination and calibration that estimate individuals' risk of THR and TKR have been developed and validated in large-scale, nationally representative data, and are readily automated in electronic patient records

Correction: Folate Augmentation of Treatment – Evaluation for Depression (FolATED): protocol of a randomised controlled trial

This correction reports changes in our protocol since its publication. These include changes to authorship and acknowledgements, together with improvements to study design and procedures, and correction of an internal inconsistency. The improvements relate to the exclusion criteria, assessments carried out at screening, and mode of data collection

Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps

Surveying cryptic, nocturnal animals is logistically challenging. Consequently, density estimates may be imprecise and uncertain. Survey innovations mitigate ecological and observational difficulties contributing to estimation variance. Thus, comparisons of survey techniques are critical to evaluate estimates of abundance. We simultaneously compared three methods for observing mountain hare Lepus timidus using Distance sampling to estimate abundance. Daylight visual surveys achieved 41 detections, estimating density at 14.3 hares km–2 (95%CI 6.3–32.5) resulting in the lowest estimate and widest confidence interval. Night-time thermal imaging achieved 206 detections, estimating density at 12.1 hares km–2 (95%CI 7.6–19.4). Thermal imaging captured more observations at furthest distances, and detected larger group sizes. Camera traps achieved 3705 night-time detections, estimating density at 22.6 hares km–2 (95%CI 17.1–29.9). Between the methods, detections were spatially correlated, although the estimates of density varied. Our results suggest that daylight visual surveys tended to underestimate density, failing to reflect nocturnal activity. Thermal imaging captured nocturnal activity, providing a higher detection rate, but required fine weather. Camera traps captured nocturnal activity, and operated 24/7 throughout harsh weather, but needed careful consideration of empirical assumptions. We discuss the merits and limitations of each method with respect to the estimation of population density in the field