Search

Background: Pain and delirium are common in people with dementia admitted to hospitals. These are often under-diagnosed and under-treated. Pain is implicated as a cause of delirium but this association has not been investigated in this setting., Objective: To investigate the relationship between pain and delirium in people with dementia, on admission and throughout a hospital admission., Design: Exploratory secondary analysis of observational prospective longitudinal cohort data., Setting: Two acute hospitals in the UK., Methodology: Two-hundred and thirty participants aged ≥70 years were assessed for dementia severity, delirium ((Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD)) scale and prescription of analgesics. Logistic and linear regressions explored the relationship between pain and delirium using cross-sectional data., Results: Pain at rest developed in 49%, and pain during activity for 26% of participants during their inpatient stay. Incident delirium developed in 15%, of participants, and 42% remained delirious for at least two assessments. Of the 35% of participants who were delirious and unable to self-report pain, 33% of these participants experienced pain at rest, and 56 experienced pain during activity. The odds of being delirious were 3.26 times higher in participants experiencing pain at rest (95% Confidence Interval 1.03-10.25, P = 0.044)., Conclusion: An association between pain at rest and delirium was found, suggesting pain may be a risk factor for delirium. Since pain and delirium were found to persist and develop during an inpatient stay, regular pain and delirium assessments are required to manage pain and delirium effectively.

Pain is underdetected and undertreated in people with dementia. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of pain in people with dementia admitted to general hospitals and explore the association between pain and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 230 people, aged above 70, with dementia and unplanned medical admissions to 2 UK hospitals. Participants were assessed at baseline and every 4 days for self-reported pain (yes/no question and FACES scale) and observed pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scale [PAINAD]) at movement and at rest, for agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitating Inventory [CMAI]) and BPSD (Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer Disease Scale [BEHAVE-AD]). On admission, 27% of participants self-reported pain rising to 39% on at least 1 occasion during admission. Half of them were able to complete the FACES scale, this proportion decreasing with more severe dementia. Using the PAINAD, 19% had pain at rest and 57% had pain on movement on at least 1 occasion (in 16%, this was persistent throughout the admission). In controlled analyses, pain was not associated with CMAI scores but was strongly associated with total BEHAVE-AD scores, both when pain was assessed on movement (β = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07-0.32, P = 0.002) and at rest (β = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14-0.69, P = 0.003). The association was the strongest for aggression and anxiety. Pain was common in people with dementia admitted to the acute hospital and associated with BPSD. Improved pain management may reduce distressing behaviours and improve the quality of hospital care for people with dementia.

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in children and young people (CYP) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) which include a wide range of diagnoses including cancer. The current literature indicates that pain is not well managed, however the evidence base to guide clinicians is limited. There is a clear need for evidence from a systematic review to inform prescribing., Objectives: To evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions used for pain in CYP with LLCs., Search Methods: The following electronic databases were searched up to December 2014: CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. In addition, we searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. For completeness, we also contacted experts in the field. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised studies and other studies that included a clearly defined comparator group were included. The studies investigated pharmacological treatments for pain associated with LLCs in CYP. The treatment included those specifically developed to treat pain and those that acted as an adjuvant, where the treatment was not primarily developed to treat pain but has pain relieving properties. The LLC was identified by its inclusion in the Richard Hain Directory of LLCs., Data Collection and Analysis: Citations were screened by five review authors. Data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A sufficient number of studies using homogeneous outcomes was not identified so a meta-analysis was not possible., Main Results: We identified 24,704 citations from our database search. Nine trials with 379 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Participants had cerebral palsy (CP) in five of the studies and osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) in the other four. Participants across the trials ranged in age from 2 to 19 years. All studies, apart from one cross-over trial, were parallel designed RCTs. Three of the trials on CP evaluated intrathecal baclofen (ITB) and two botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A). All of the OI trials evaluated the use of bisphosphonates (two alendronate and one pamidronate). No trials were identified that evaluated a commonly used analgesic in this patient group. Pain was a secondary outcome in five of the eight identified studies. Overall the quality of the trials was mixed. Only one study involved over 100 participants.For the two ITB studies for pain in CP, in the same study population but assessed at different time points in their disease, both found an effect on pain favouring the intervention compared to the control group (standard care or placebo) (mean difference (MD) 4.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 6.25; MD 26.60, 95% CI 2.61 to 50.59, respectively). In these studies most of the adverse events related to the procedure or device for administration rather than the drug, such as swelling at the pump site. In one trial there were also eight serious adverse effects; these included difficulty swallowing and an epileptic seizure. The trial did not state if these occurred in the intervention group. At follow-up in both BoNT-A trials there was no evidence of a difference in pain between the trial arms among CP participants. The adverse events in the BoNT-A trials mostly involved those who received the intervention drug and involved seizures. Gastrointestinal problems were the most frequent adverse event in those who received alendronate. The trial investigating pamidronate found no evidence of a difference in pain compared to the control group. No adverse events were reported in this trial., Authors' Conclusions: Published, controlled evidence on the pharmacological interventions for pain in CYP with LLCs is limited. The evidence that is currently available evaluated pain largely as a secondary outcome and the drugs used were all adjuvants and not always commonly used in general paediatric palliative care for pain. Based on current data this systematic review is unable to determine the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain for CYP with LLCs. Future trials with larger populations should examine the effects of the drugs commonly used as analgesics; with the rising prevalence of many LLCs this becomes more necessary.

Objectives: To (1) describe the prescription and administration of regular and 'as required' (pro re nata [PRN]) analgesics in English care homes, (2) investigate individual and care home factors associated with analgesic use. Methods: We collected data (2014–2016) at 0‐, 4‐, and 12‐months nested in a longitudinal cohort study of 86 English care homes about residents with diagnosed or probable dementia. We describe analgesics prescribed as regular or PRN medication, by class, and PRN administration. We explored individual differences (sociodemographic; dementia severity [Clinical Dementia Rating]), and care home differences (type; ownership; number of beds; dementia‐registered/specialist; Care Quality Commission rating) in prescription and administration using multilevel regression models. Results: Data were available for 1483 residents. At baseline, 967 residents (67.9%) were prescribed analgesics: 426 residents (28.7%) prescribed regular analgesics and 670 (45.2%) prescribed PRN. Paracetamol was the most prescribed analgesic (56.7%), with PRN prescriptions more common than regular (39.7% vs. 16.6%). Across all study visits, 344 residents (mean = 41.9%) with a PRN prescription did not receive any analgesic in the 2 weeks prior to data collection. Male residents and those with severe dementia received fewer analgesics. Care homes differences in PRN administration were not explained by the modelled variables. Conclusions: Pain management in English care homes largely relies on PRN paracetamol that is frequently prescribed but infrequently administered. Care homes differ in how often they administer PRN analgesics. Some care home residents particularly those with more severe dementia are likely to have untreated pain. Key points: English care home residents with dementia are frequently prescribed pro re nata (PRN) analgesics but these are infrequently administered.Some groups of residents (male, more severe dementia) receive fewer analgesics and may be at risk of undertreatment for pain.Before prescribing pain relief, clinicians need to consider the risk that PRN analgesics may not be administered.Pragmatic pain management guidelines specifically for care home residents with dementia and improving medication documentation may optimise analgesic use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines. The need to understand their benefits is a public priority, especially in light of funding pressures. Aim: To synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of aromatherapy, massage and reflexology in people with palliative care needs. Design: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42017081409) was undertaken following international standards including Cochrane guidelines. The quality of trials and their pooled evidence were appraised. Primary outcomes on effect were anxiety, pain and quality-of-life. Data sources: Eight citation databases and three trial registries were searched to June 2018. Results: Twenty-two trials, involving 1956 participants were identified. Compared with a control, four evaluated aromatherapy, eight massage and six reflexology. A further four evaluated massage compared with aromatherapy. Trials were at an unclear risk of bias. Many had small samples. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. In comparison with usual care, another therapy or an active control, evidence on the effectiveness of massage and aromatherapy in reducing anxiety, pain and improving quality-of-life was inconclusive. There was some evidence (low quality) that compared to an active control, reflexology reduced pain. Conclusions: This review identified a relatively large number of trials, but with poor and heterogeneous evidence. New clinical recommendations cannot be made based on current evidence. To help provide more definitive trial findings, it may be useful first to understand more about the best way to measure the effectiveness of these therapies in palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing number of people are dying with advanced dementia. Comfort and quality of life are key goals of care. Aims: To describe (1) physical and psychological symptoms, (2) health and social care service utilisation and (3) care at end of life in people with advanced dementia. Design: 9-month prospective cohort study. Setting and participants: Greater London, England, people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Scale 6e and above) from 14 nursing homes or their own homes. Main outcome measures: At study entry and monthly: prescriptions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pressure sore risk/severity (Waterlow Scale/Stirling Scale, respectively), acute medical events, pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), quality of life (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale), resource use (Resource Utilization in Dementia Questionnaire and Client Services Receipt Inventory), presence/type of advance care plans, interventions, mortality, place of death and comfort (Symptom Management at End of Life in Dementia Scale). Results: Of 159 potential participants, 85 were recruited (62% alive at end of follow-up). Pain (11% at rest, 61% on movement) and significant agitation (54%) were common and persistent. Aspiration, dyspnoea, septicaemia and pneumonia were more frequent in those who died. In total, 76% had 'do not resuscitate' statements, less than 40% advance care plans. Most received primary care visits, there was little input from geriatrics or mental health but contact with emergency paramedics was common. Conclusion: People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. Service provision was not tailored to their needs. Longitudinal multidisciplinary input could optimise symptom control and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore global changes in the prescription of analgesic drugs over time in the international long‐term care (LTC) population. Design: Systematic review. Setting: We included original research articles in English, published and unpublished, that included number of participants, country and year(s) of data collection, and prescription of analgesics (analgesics not otherwise specified, opioids, acetaminophen; scheduled only, or scheduled plus as needed (PRN)). Participants: LTC residents. Measurements: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, using keywords for LTC facilities and analgesic medication; hand‐searched references of eligible papers; correspondence. Studies were quality rated using an adapted Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Pearson correlation coefficients were generated between percentage of residents prescribed an analgesic and year of data collection. If available, we investigated changes in acetaminophen and opioid prescriptions. Results: Forty studies met inclusion criteria. A moderate correlation (0.59) suggested that scheduled prescription rates for analgesics have increased over time. Similar findings were reflected in scheduled prescriptions for acetaminophen and opioids. No increase was seen when analyzing scheduled plus PRN analgesics. Use of opioids (scheduled plus PRN) appears to have increased over time. Conclusion: Worldwide, use of opioids and acetaminophen has increased in LTC residents. Research is needed to explore whether this reflects appropriate pain management for LTC residents and if PRN medication is used effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]