Objective To determine whether a systematic approach to the treatment of pain can reduce agitation in people with moderate to severe dementia living in nursing homes.Design Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Many elderly people experience pain and regularly take analgesic medication. Pain is also frequent in people with dementia, particularly those with severe disease. As no robust clinical guidelines are available for the treatment of pain in the context of dementia, the risk of inadequate treatment in individuals with this condition is high. Furthermore, our understanding of the aetiology of pain and the potential role of dementia-associated neuropathology in pain is limited. These issues are important in the clinical management of individuals with dementia, as untreated pain is a major contributor to reduced quality of life and disability, and can lead to increased behavioural and psychological symptoms. Assessment scales to identify pain in people with dementia have been highlighted in recent studies, but there is little evidence for consistency between these tools. Numerous studies have evaluated various approaches for the treatment of pain, including stepped-care protocols and/or administration of paracetamol and opioid medications. In this Review, we summarize the best-available evidence regarding the aetiology, assessment and treatment of pain in people with dementia. Further validation of assessment tools and large-scale trials of treatment approaches in people with dementia are needed to improve clinical guidance for the treatment of pain in these individuals.

No abstract

BackgroundNursing home (NH) patients have complex health problems, disabilities and needs for Advance Care Planning (ACP). The implementation of ACP in NHs is a neglected research topic, yet it may optimize the intervention efficacy, or provide explanations for low efficacy. This scoping review investigates methods, design and outcomes and the implementation of ACP (i.e., themes and guiding questions, setting, facilitators, implementers, and promoters/barriers).MethodsA systematic search using ACP MESH terms and keywords was conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase and Cochrane libraries. We excluded studies on home-dwelling and hospital patients, including only specific diagnoses and/or chart-based interventions without conversations.ResultsSixteen papers were included. There were large variations in definitions and content of ACP, study design, implementation strategies and outcomes. Often, the ACP intervention or implementation processes were not described in detail. Few studies included patients lacking decision-making capacity, despite the fact that this group is significantly present in most NHs. The chief ACP implementation strategy was education of staff. Among others, ACP improved documentation of and adherence to preferences. Important implementation barriers were non-attending NH physicians, legal challenges and reluctance to participate among personnel and relatives.ConclusionACP intervention studies in NHs are few and heterogeneous. Variation in ACP definitions may be related to cultural and legal differences. This variation, along with sparse information about procedures, makes it difficult to collate and compare research results. Essential implementation considerations relate to the involvement and education of nurses, physicians and leaders.

The ageing revolution is changing the composition of our society with more people becoming very old with higher risks for developing both pain and dementia. Pain is normally signaled by verbal communication, which becomes more and more deteriorated in people with dementia. Thus, these individuals unnecessarily suffer from manageable but unrecognized pain. Pain assessment in patients with dementia is a challenging endeavor, with scientific advancements quickly developing. Pain assessment tools and protocols (mainly observational scales) have been incorporated into national and international guidelines of pain assessment in aged individuals. To effectively assess pain, interdisciplinary collaboration (nurses, physicians, psychologists, computer scientists, and engineers) is essential. Pain management in this vulnerable population is also preferably done in an interdisciplinary setting. Nonpharmacological management programs have been predominantly tested in younger populations without dementia. However, many of them are relatively safe, have proven their efficacy, and therefore deserve a first place in pain management programs. Paracetamol is a relatively safe and effective first-choice analgesic. There are many safety issues regarding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and adjuvant analgesics in dementia patients. It is therefore recommended to monitor both pain and potential side effects regularly. More research is necessary to provide better guidance for pain management in dementia.

Patients with severe dementia and mixed dementia are at high risk to suffer from severe pain. More research and quality improvement programs are needed to increase the knowledge in pain treatment by staff, which requires competence in both pain assessment and dementia.

Pain assessment in older persons with severe cognitive impairment (SCI) is a challenge due to reduced self-report capacity and lack of movement-related pain assessment instruments. The purpose of this article was to describe the development of the Mobilization-Observation-Behaviour-Intensity-Dementia Pain Scale (MOBID) and to investigate aspects of reliability and validity. MOBID is a nurse-administered instrument developed for use in patients with SCI, where presence of pain behavior indicators (pain noises, facial expression, and defense) may be observed during standardized active, guided movements, and then inferred to represent pain intensity. Initially, the MOBID contained seven items (observing at rest, mobilization of the hands, arms, legs, turn over in bed, sitting on bedside, and teeth/mouth care). This was tested in 26 nursing home patients with SCI. Their primary caregivers, five registered nurses and six licensed practical nurses (LPNs), rated the patients' pain intensity during regular morning care, and by MOBID, both at bedside and from video uptakes. Three external raters (LPNs), not knowing the patients, also completed the MOBID by rating the videos. Internal consistency of the MOBID indicated high Cronbach's alpha (alpha=0.90) after deleting the items for observation at rest and observation of teeth/mouth care. MOBID disclosed significantly more pain than did pain scorings during regular morning care, and video observation demonstrated higher pain intensity than bedside scoring. Intertester reliability for inferred pain intensity was high to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70-0.96), but varied between poor and excellent for pain behavior indicators (kappa=0.05-0.84). These results suggest that registration of pain behavior indicators during active, guided movements, as performed by the MOBID procedure, is useful to disclose reliable and valid pain intensity scores in patients with SCI.

Available evidence suggests that (pain) interventions targeting behaviour, and (behavioural) interventions targeting pain are effective in reducing pain and behavioural symptoms in dementia.