IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v19y2010i1-2p42-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validating nurses’ and nursing assistants’ report of assessing pain in older people with dementia

Author

Listed:
  • Yi‐Heng Chen
  • Li‐Chan Lin
  • Roger Watson

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To evaluate the usefulness of registered nurses’ (RNs) and nursing assistants’ (NAs) pain report among 304 institutional older people with dementia and elucidate the factors influencing the agreement of pain reports within dyadic assessors. Background. Using informant reports has been suggested as an effective strategy to solve the dilemma of pain assessment in people with dementia. However, the validity of pain information provided by institutional caregivers is still under‐investigated. Design. A prospective study was undertaken in six dementia special care units in Northern Taiwan. Methods. Both the four‐item pain inventory and Doloplus‐2 scale were used to investigate different raters’ pain reports. Results. Across pain variables, fair to moderate agreement was noted in RNs’ assessment (Kappa = 0·29–0·42), but poor agreement in NAs assessment (Kappa = 0·11–0·24). Comparing mean scores on intensity, frequency of pain and Doloplus‐2, statistically systematic bias existed in most pairs, but the greater bias occurred in NAs’ assessment. In logistic regression analysis, when pain was assessed by the pain inventory, residents’ cognitive impairment level and caregiver’s age were associated with the agreement of pain presence perceived in either resident‐nurse or resident‐NA pairs. Nevertheless, when pain was rated by the Doloplus‐2 scale, only residents’ physical function influenced the agreement of pain report for both research assistants (RAs)–nurse and RAs–NA pairs. Conclusions. Nurses’ pain report across pain variables may be more reliable than NAs. Furthermore, factors influencing the agreement of pain assessed by self‐report measurement or behavioural observations may be different, needing further investigation. Relevance to clinical practice. Pain inquiry and behavioural observation should be performed routinely as the fifth vital sign for developing effective care plans. Institutional caregivers should be used as alternative or complementary informants for assessing pain in older people with dementia.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi‐Heng Chen & Li‐Chan Lin & Roger Watson, 2010. "Validating nurses’ and nursing assistants’ report of assessing pain in older people with dementia," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1‐2), pages 42-52, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:1-2:p:42-52
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02950.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02950.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02950.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammad Rababa, 2018. "Pain Assessment in People With Dementia: Remaining Controversies," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 1-62, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:1-2:p:42-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.