Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 214–221 | Cite as

Self- and proxy report for the assessment of pain in patients with and without cognitive impairment

Experiences gained in a geriatric hospital
  • A. Lukas
  • T. Niederecker
  • I. Günther
  • B. Mayer
  • T. Nikolaus
Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt

Abstract

Background

Pain assessment is a complex procedure in patients with different degrees of cognitive impairment. The challenge is to determine whether self-reporting tools are adequate and to identify the cases in which proxy ratings are necessary.

Patients and methods

As part of an open, prospective observational study, 178 patients underwent a comprehensive pain assessment consisting of the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Verbal Rating Scale with four and five items (VRS4 and VRS5) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (PAINAD).

Results

Even without prior knowledge of a patient’s cognitive impairment, this toolkit can be used to reliably identify cases where self-rating is appropriate and where proxy rating becomes necessary. Inter-rater reliability: “good” agreement [Cohen’s κ = 74.2% (p < 0.001) (95%CI, 54.6–93.8%)], test–retest reliability: “moderate” agreement [κ = 55.3% (p < 0.001) (95%CI, 28.5–82.1%)]. Furthermore, movement resulted in a higher correlation between the selected assessments. Self-report assessments are appropriate up to a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) value greater than ten. In comparison to NRS, VRS4 and VRS5 remain more stable as the degree of cognitive impairment increases.

Conclusions

In the majority of the cases, our approach enables reliable appropriate pain assessment without the strict prerequisite of an upstream cognitive assessment.

Keywords

Dementia Rating scale Communication Movement Quality of life 

Selbst- oder Fremdeinschätzung im Schmerzassessment bei Menschen mit und ohne kognitive Einschränkung

Erfahrungen aus einer geriatrischen Akutklinik

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Schmerzassessment bei Patienten mit unterschiedlichen Schweregraden einer kognitiven Einschränkung ist ein komplexer Vorgang. Die Herausforderung ist zu erkennen, ob eine Selbsteinschätzung möglich oder ab wann eine Fremdeinschätzung notwendig wird.

Methoden

Im Rahmen einer offenen, prospektiven Beobachtungsstudie erhielten 178 Patienten ein umfassendes Schmerzassessment, bestehend aus Numerischer Rating Skala (NRS), Verbaler Rating Skala (VRS4 und 5) und BESD Skala (Beurteilung des Schmerzes bei Demenz).

Ergebnisse

Das verwendete Toolkit ist geeignet, ohne Kenntnis der kognitiven Einschränkung der Patienten, zuverlässig zu identifizieren, wo eine Selbsteinschätzung angemessen oder eine Fremdeinschätzung notwendig wird. Inter-Rater Reliabilität: „gute“ Übereinstimmung (Cohens κ = 74,2 % (p < 0,001) (95 %CI, 54,6–93,8 %)), Re-Test Reliabilität: „moderate“ Übereinstimmung (κ = 55,3 % (p < 0,001) (95 %CI, 28,5–82,1 %)). Bewegung führt zu höheren Korrelationen zwischen den gewählten Assessments. Selbsteinschätzung ist bis zu einem Wert von MMSE > 10 angemessen. VRS4 und VRS5 sind im Unterschied zur NRS über zunehmende kognitive Einschränkungen länger stabil.

Schlussfolgerung

Unser Verfahren führt in der Mehrzahl der Fälle zuverlässig zu einem angemessenen Schmerzassessment, wobei ein vorangeschaltetes kognitives Assessment nicht absolut notwendig erscheint.

Schlüsselwörter

Demenz Rating Skala Kommunikation Bewegung Lebensqualität 

References

  1. 1.
    Ags (2002) The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:205–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida OP, Almeida SA (1999) Short versions of the geriatric depression scale: a study of their validity for the diagnosis of a major depressive episode according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 14:858–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altman D (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anonymous (2010) Auswirkungen auf Krankenhausbehandlungen und Pflegebedürftige im Bund und in den Ländern. WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basler HD, Bloem R, Casser HR et al (2001) Ein struturiertes Schmerzinterview für geriatrische Patienten. Schmerz 15:164–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basler HD, Hueger D, Kunz R et al (2006) Assessment of pain in advanced dementia. Construct validity of the German PAINAD. Schmerz 20:519–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Closs S, Barr B, Briggs M et al (2004) A comparison of five pain assessment scales for nursing home residents with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. J Pain Symptom Manage 27:196–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldt KS (2000) The checklist of nonverbal pain indicators (CNPI). Pain Manag Nurs 1:13–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, Mchugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson S (2006) Older People’s Pain. In: Pain clinical updates, IASP Press, Seattle, p 1–4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grace J, Amick MM (2005) Cognitive screening of older adults. Med Health R I 88:8–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C et al (2005) The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 58:595–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hadjistavropoulos TP, Herr KP, Turk DCP et al (2007) An interdisciplinary expert consensus statement on assessment of pain in older persons. Clin J Pain 23(Suppl):1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herr K (2011) Pain assessment strategies in older patients. J Pain 12:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herr KA, Spratt K, Mobily PR et al (2004) Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain 20:207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF et al (2011) Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 41:1073–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horgas AL, Elliott AF, Marsiske M (2009) Pain assessment in persons with dementia: relationship between self-report and behavioral observation. J Am Geriatr Soc 57:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Husebo BS, Strand LI, Moe-Nilssen R et al (2009) Pain behaviour and pain intensity in older persons with severe dementia: reliability of the MOBID Pain Scale by video uptake. Scand J Caring Sci 23:180–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ivemeyer D, Zerfaß R (2005) Demenztests in der Praxis – Ein Wegweiser. Elsevier GmbH, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S (1986) The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 27:117–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones KR, Fink R, Hutt E et al (2005) Measuring pain intensity in nursing home residents. J Pain Symptom Manage 30:519–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones KR, Vojir CP, Hutt E et al (2007) Determining mild, moderate, and severe pain equivalency across pain-intensity tools in nursing home residents. J Rehabil Res Dev 44:305–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keefe FJ, Block AR (1982) Development of an observation method for assessing pain behavior in chronic low back pain patients. Behav Ther 13:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leong IY, Chong MS, Gibson SJ (2006) The use of a self-reported pain measure, a nurse-reported pain measure and the PAINAD in nursing home residents with moderate and severe dementia: a validation study. Age Ageing 35:252–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lukas A, Schuler M, Fischer TW et al (2012) Pain and dementia: a diagnostic challenge. Z Gerontol Geriatr 45:45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel D (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 14:56–61Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitchell AJ, Bird V, Rizzo M et al (2010) Which version of the geriatric depression scale is most useful in medical settings and nursing homes? Diagnostic validity meta-analysis. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 18:1066–1077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morrison RS, Siu AL (2000) A comparison of pain and its treatment in advanced dementia and cognitively intact patients with hip fracture. J Pain Symptom Manage 19:240–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pautex S, Herrmann F, Le Lous P et al (2005) Feasibility and reliability of four pain self-assessment scales and correlation with an observational rating scale in hospitalized elderly demented patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 60:524–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pautex S, Michon A, Guedira M et al (2006) Pain in severe dementia: self-assessment or observational scales? J Am Geriatr Soc 54:1040–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pesonen A, Kauppila T, Tarkkila P et al (2009) Evaluation of easily applicable pain measurement tools for the assessment of pain in demented patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 53:657–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pickering G, Jourdan D, Dubray C (2006) Acute versus chronic pain treatment in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Pain 10:379–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reisberg B (1988) Functional assessment staging (FAST). Psychopharmacol Bull 24:653–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson CL (2007) Relieving pain in the elderly. Health Prog 88:48–53, 70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rösler M, Frey U, Retz-Junginger P et al (2003) Diagnostik in der Demenz: Standardisierte Untersuchungsinstrumente im Überblick. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 71:187–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schiavenato M, Craig KD (2010) Pain assessment as a social transaction: beyond the “gold standard”. Clin J Pain 26:667–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schuler MS, Becker S, Kaspar R et al (2007) Psychometric properties of the German “Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale” (PAINAD-G) in nursing home residents. J Am Med Dir Assoc 8:388–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sclan SG, Reisberg B (1992) Functional assessment staging (FAST) in Alzheimer’s disease: reliability, validity, and ordinality. Int Psychogeriatr 4(Suppl 1):55–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seymour RA (1982) The use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics in post-operative dental pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 23:441–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shega JW, Hougham GW, Stocking CB et al (2004) Pain in community-dwelling persons with dementia: frequency, intensity, and congruence between patient and caregiver report. J Pain Symptom Manage 28:585–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tombaugh TN, Mcintyre NJ (1992) The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc 40:922–935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tosato M, Lukas A, Van Der Roest HG et al (2012) Association of pain with behavioral and psychiatric symptoms among nursing home residents with cognitive impairment: results from the SHELTER study. Pain 153:305–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Warden V, Hurley AC, Volicer L (2003) Development and psychometric evaluation of the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc 4:9–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weyerer S (2005) Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes – Bd 28. Altersdemenz. Robert-Koch-Institut in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Statistisches BundesamtGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zanocchi M, Maero B, Nicola E et al (2008) Chronic pain in a sample of nursing home residents: prevalence, characteristics, influence on quality of life (QoL). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 47:121–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zwakhalen SM, Hamers JP, Berger MP (2006) The psychometric quality and clinical usefulness of three pain assessment tools for elderly people with dementia. Pain 126:210–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Lukas
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Niederecker
    • 1
    • 2
  • I. Günther
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. Mayer
    • 3
  • T. Nikolaus
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic, Competence Center of Geriatrics and Aging Research, Stipendiat Forschungskolleg Geriatrie, Robert Bosch StiftungUniversity of Ulm, Akademisches Krankenhaus Universität UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Geriatric Center UlmUlmGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Epidemiology and Medical BiometryUniversity UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations