Study Protocol: The Behaviour and Pain in Dementia Study (BePAID)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>People with dementia admitted to the acute hospital often receive poor quality care particularly with regards to management of behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and of pain. There have been no UK studies on the prevalence and type of pain or BPSD in people with dementia in this setting, or on how these may impact on patients, carers, staff and costs of care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We shall recruit older people with dementia who have unplanned acute medical admissions and measure the prevalence of BPSD using the Behave-AD (Behaviour in Alzheimer's Disease) and the CMAI (Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory). Pain prevalence and severity will be assessed by the PAINAD (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia) and the FACES pain scale. We will then analyse how these impact on a variety of outcomes and test the hypothesis that poor management of pain is associated with worsening of BPSD.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>By demonstrating the costs of BPSD to individuals with dementia and the health service this study will provide important evidence to drive improvements in care. We can then develop effective training for acute hospital staff and alternative treatment strategies for BPSD in this setting.</p

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

Psychometric properties of instruments to measure the quality of end-of-life care and dying for long-term care residents with dementia

Purpose: Quality of care for long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia at the end-of-life is often evaluated using standardized instruments that were not developed for or thoroughly tested in this population. Given the importance of using appropriate instruments to evaluate the quality of care (QOC) and quality of dying (QOD) in LTC, we compared the validity and reliability of ten available instruments commonly used for these purposes. Methods: We performed prospective observations and retrospective interviews and surveys of family (n = 70) and professionals (n = 103) of LTC decedents with dementia in the Netherlands. Results: Instruments within the constructs QOC and QOD were highly correlated, and showed moderate to high correlation with overall assessments of QOC and QOD. Prospective and retrospective ratings using the same instruments differed little. Concordance between family and professional scores was low. Cronbach's alpha was mostly adequate. The EOLD-CAD showed good fit with pre-assumed factor structures. The EOLD-SWC and FPCS appear most valid and reliable for measuring QOC, and the EOLD-CAD and MSSE for measuring QOD. The POS performed worst in this population. Conclusions: Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia. © The Author(s) 2011