Fulltext

Pain assessment using self-reported, nurse-reported, and observational pain assessment tools among older individuals with cognitive impairment

Ngu SS 1 , Tan MP 2 , Subramanian P 3 , Abdul Rahman R 4 , Kamaruzzaman S 2 , Chin AV 2 Show all authors , Tan KM 2 , Poi PJ 2

Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Electronic address: [email protected]
  • 2 Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Ageing and Age-Associated Disorders Research Group, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 3 Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Ageing and Age-Associated Disorders Research Group, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 4 Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Pain Manag Nurs, 2015 Aug;16(4):595-601.
PMID: 26088939 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2014.12.002

Abstract

Pain assessment in older individuals with cognitive impairment is challenging. Evidence on the performance of pain assessment tools in this population remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of self-reported pain, nurse-reported pain, and observational pain tools among older patients with cognitive impairment using a prospective observational design. In all, 152 older individuals admitted to the acute geriatric ward were recruited through convenience sampling. Three methods of pain assessment were compared: self-reported pain (SRP), observational pain using the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) tool, and nurse-reported pain (NRP). Cognition and mood were assessed with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15). There was moderate agreement between SRP and PAINAD (k = 0.438) and fair agreement between SRP and NRP (k = 0.263). There was statistically significant correlation between SRP and GDS-15 (r = 0.382, p 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications