13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic pain assessment in nursing homes: a cluster-randomized trial using mixed-methods approach

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Chronic pain affects nursing home residents’ daily life. Pain assessment is central to adequate pain management. The overall aim was to investigate effects of a pain management intervention on nursing homes residents and to describe staffs’ experiences of the intervention.

          Methods

          A cluster-randomized trial and a mixed-methods approach. Randomized nursing home assignment to intervention or comparison group. The intervention group after theoretical and practical training sessions, performed systematic pain assessments using predominately observational scales with external and internal facilitators supporting the implementation. No measures were taken in the comparison group; pain management continued as before, but after the study corresponding training was provided. Resident data were collected baseline and at two follow-ups using validated scales and record reviews. Nurse group interviews were carried out twice. Primary outcome measures were wellbeing and proxy-measured pain. Secondary outcome measures were ADL-dependency and pain documentation.

          Results

          Using both non-parametric statistics on residential level and generalized estimating equation (GEE) models to take clustering effects into account, the results revealed non-significant interaction effects for the primary outcome measures, while for ADL-dependency using Katz-ADL there was a significant interaction effect. Comparison group ( n = 66 residents) Katz-ADL values showed increased dependency over time, while the intervention group demonstrated no significant change over time ( n = 98). In the intervention group, 13/44 residents showed decreased pain scores over the period, 14/44 had no pain score changes ≥ 30% in either direction measured with Doloplus-2. Furthermore, 17/44 residents showed increased pain scores ≥ 30% over time, indicating pain/risk for pain; 8 identified at the first assessment and 9 were new, i.e. developed pain over time. No significant changes in the use of drugs was found in any of the groups. Nursing pain related documentation was sparse. In general, nurses from the outset were positive regarding pain assessments. Persisting positive attitudes seemed strengthened by continued assessment experiences and perceptions of improved pain management.

          Conclusion

          The implementation of a systematic work approach to pain issues in nursing homes indicates that an increased awareness, collaboration across and shared understanding among the team members of the pain assessment results can improve pain management and lead to decreased physical deterioration or the maintenance of physical and functional abilities among NH residents. However, pain (proxy-measured) and wellbeing level did not reveal any interaction effects between the groups over time.

          Trial registration

          The study was registered in ISRCTN71142240 in September 2012, retrospectively registered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

          Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              UNDERSTANDING HUMAN COMPETENCE AT WORK: AN INTERPRETATIVE APPROACH.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +46-26-64-82-89 , +46-76-9458289 , anna-greta.mamhidir@hig.se
                britt-marie.sjolund@hig.se
                birgitta.flackman@esh.se
                anders.wimo@ki.se
                anders.skoldunger@ki.se
                maria.engstrom@hig.se
                Journal
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2318
                28 February 2017
                28 February 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 61
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1017 0589, GRID grid.69292.36, Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, , University of Gävle, ; Gävle, Sweden
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9457, GRID grid.8993.b, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, , Uppsala University, ; Uppsala, Sweden
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0626, GRID grid.4714.6, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Aging Research Center (ARC), , Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, ; Stockholm, Sweden
                [4 ]Department of Health Care Sciences of Ersta, Sköndal University College, Stockholm, Sweden
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0626, GRID grid.4714.6, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), , Karolinska Institutet, ; Stockholm, Sweden
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 6428, GRID grid.440824.e, Nursing Department, , Medicine and Health College, Lishui University, ; Lishui, China
                Article
                454
                10.1186/s12877-017-0454-z
                5330015
                28241785
                7c18cab3-eb9c-4006-966a-6498248a869c
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 October 2016
                : 21 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: The University of Gävle, Sweden
                Funded by: The Swedish Alzheimer’s Foundation, Sweden
                Funded by: The Dementia Association-The National Association for the Rights of the Demented, Stockholm, Sweden.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Geriatric medicine
                pain assessment,pain intervention,nursing homes,cluster- randomized trial,mixed-methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article