Pressure injury pain over time among nursing home residents,.

• Study examines PrI pain among NH residents (33 participants, stages 1–4). • 82 % reported PrI pain: 57 % mild, 26 % moderate, 16 % severe. • Afternoon peak in pain; no significant differences over 2 days. • Poor agreement between VRS and PAINAD pain assessment scales. • Only 22 % PrI pain documented in MDS; 42 % received timely pain medication. Examine pressure injury (PrI) pain severity, stability, and current treatment of PrI pain among nursing home (NH) residents using two assessment tools and a descriptive cohort study design. PrI pain affects quality of life of NH residents yet, best assessment methods, stability of PrI pain, and how to take care of the pain are not well known. Data collected from 33 residents with PrI (stages 1–4) from 4 NHs. All PrI were staged and assessed using the Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool (BWAT) to determine severity. Verbal Response Scale (VRS) and Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) were used to assess general and PrI pain 3 times a day for two days within one week. Data classified as: no, mild, moderate, or severe pain. Proportions of participants with different levels of PrI pain were calculated. T tests were conducted to examine differences across time; VRS and PAINAD were examined for agreement. Participants were 74 % female, 49 % white, 58 % cognitively intact, 58 % functionally dependent, and had mean age of 82 years old. The majority (52 %; n = 17) were full thickness PrI, stage 3 (n = 5), stage 4 (n = 7), unstageable (n = 5). The majority of participants (82 %; n = 27) reported PrI pain on at least one of six assessments over the two days; with 57 % mild, 26 % moderate and 16 % severe pain. More severe pain occurred in afternoon. No differences existed across days. Although there was a positive relationship between VRS and PAINAD in pain assessments (r = 0.38, P <.05), the agreement between the two scales, as indicated by Cohen's kappa (K = 0.19, p =.28), was found to be poor. Of those with PrI pain, 22 % had pain documented in the Minimum Data Set (MDS). Only 42 % of participants who reported PrI pain received pain medication within 12 h of initial pain assessment. Out of 28 participants who received routine pain medication for general pain, 18 of them reported experiencing no pain. While VRS and PAINAD scores exhibited a relationship, their agreement was limited. Documentation of PrI pain on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was found to be inadequate. Notably, 40 % of participants reported higher levels of PrI pain in the afternoon, suggesting this time may be opportune for PrI pain assessment and management. Interestingly, participants who received medication for general pain did not report PrI pain, suggesting that treatment of general pain may effectively alleviate PrI pain symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]