School of Nursing, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
School of Nursing, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Geriatr Nurs. 2024 Sep-Oct;59:362-371. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2024.07.010. Epub 2024 Aug 9.
Examine pressure injury (PrI) pain severity, stability, and current treatment of PrI pain among nursing home (NH) residents using two assessment tools and a descriptive cohort study design.
PrI pain affects quality of life of NH residents yet, best assessment methods, stability of PrI pain, and how to take care of the pain are not well known.
Data collected from 33 residents with PrI (stages 1-4) from 4 NHs. All PrI were staged and assessed using the Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool (BWAT) to determine severity. Verbal Response Scale (VRS) and Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) were used to assess general and PrI pain 3 times a day for two days within one week. Data classified as: no, mild, moderate, or severe pain. Proportions of participants with different levels of PrI pain were calculated. T tests were conducted to examine differences across time; VRS and PAINAD were examined for agreement.
Participants were 74 % female, 49 % white, 58 % cognitively intact, 58 % functionally dependent, and had mean age of 82 years old. The majority (52 %; n = 17) were full thickness PrI, stage 3 (n = 5), stage 4 (n = 7), unstageable (n = 5). The majority of participants (82 %; n = 27) reported PrI pain on at least one of six assessments over the two days; with 57 % mild, 26 % moderate and 16 % severe pain. More severe pain occurred in afternoon. No differences existed across days. Although there was a positive relationship between VRS and PAINAD in pain assessments (r = 0.38, P<.05), the agreement between the two scales, as indicated by Cohen's kappa (K = 0.19, p=.28), was found to be poor. Of those with PrI pain, 22 % had pain documented in the Minimum Data Set (MDS). Only 42 % of participants who reported PrI pain received pain medication within 12 h of initial pain assessment. Out of 28 participants who received routine pain medication for general pain, 18 of them reported experiencing no pain.
While VRS and PAINAD scores exhibited a relationship, their agreement was limited. Documentation of PrI pain on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was found to be inadequate. Notably, 40 % of participants reported higher levels of PrI pain in the afternoon, suggesting this time may be opportune for PrI pain assessment and management. Interestingly, participants who received medication for general pain did not report PrI pain, suggesting that treatment of general pain may effectively alleviate PrI pain symptoms.
使用两种评估工具和描述性队列研究设计,检查养老院(NH)居民的压力性损伤(PrI)疼痛严重程度、稳定性和当前疼痛治疗情况。
PrI 疼痛会影响 NH 居民的生活质量,但最佳评估方法、PrI 疼痛的稳定性以及如何治疗疼痛尚不清楚。
从 4 家 NH 中收集了 33 名患有 PrI(1-4 期)的居民的数据。所有的 PrI 都使用 Bates-Jensen 伤口评估工具(BWAT)进行分期和评估,以确定严重程度。口头反应量表(VRS)和高级痴呆症疼痛评估量表(PAINAD)在一周内的两天内每天三次用于评估一般疼痛和 PrI 疼痛。数据分为:无、轻度、中度或重度疼痛。计算不同程度 PrI 疼痛的参与者比例。进行 t 检验以检查不同时间点的差异;检验 VRS 和 PAINAD 的一致性。
参与者中 74%为女性,49%为白人,58%认知完整,58%功能依赖,平均年龄为 82 岁。大多数(52%;n=17)为全层 PrI,3 期(n=5),4 期(n=7),无法分期(n=5)。大多数参与者(82%;n=27)在两天内的六次评估中有至少一次报告 PrI 疼痛;57%为轻度,26%为中度,16%为重度疼痛。下午疼痛更严重。两天之间没有差异。尽管 VRS 和 PAINAD 在疼痛评估方面存在正相关关系(r=0.38,P<.05),但两种量表之间的一致性,如 Cohen's kappa(K=0.19,p=.28)所示,被发现很差。在有 PrI 疼痛的患者中,22%在最低数据集中(MDS)有疼痛记录。仅 42%的在初始疼痛评估后 12 小时内接受疼痛药物治疗的患者报告有 PrI 疼痛。在接受常规疼痛药物治疗一般疼痛的 28 名患者中,有 18 名患者报告没有疼痛。
尽管 VRS 和 PAINAD 评分之间存在关系,但它们的一致性有限。最低数据集中(MDS)记录的 PrI 疼痛不足。值得注意的是,40%的参与者在下午报告更高水平的 PrI 疼痛,这表明此时可能是评估和管理 PrI 疼痛的适当时间。有趣的是,接受一般疼痛药物治疗的患者没有报告 PrI 疼痛,这表明治疗一般疼痛可能有效缓解 PrI 疼痛症状。