Responding to Varying Levels of Certainty about Pain in People with Dementia after Initial Pain Assessment

IF 1.4 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra Pub Date : 2019-08-13 DOI:10.1159/000501030
Mohammad J Rababa, M. Aldalaykeh
{"title":"Responding to Varying Levels of Certainty about Pain in People with Dementia after Initial Pain Assessment","authors":"Mohammad J Rababa, M. Aldalaykeh","doi":"10.1159/000501030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Pain is still inadequately treated in people with dementia (PWD) due to the complexity of assessing it. Pain assessment in PWD is still challenging because of patient-related or nurse-related factors. The patient-related factors have been studied extensively. However, the nurse-related factors, e.g., nurses’ certainty regarding suspected pain in PWD, have been given little attention by researchers. Purpose: This study aims to investigate how the degree of nurses’ certainty is compromised after pain assessment and how this affects levels of pain and agitation in PWD. Method: A descriptive, correlational design was used, and a convenience sample of 104 nursing home residents with dementia were recruited. Results: This study found that nurses’ certainty after the pain assessment mediates the relationship between the type of pain assessment and patient outcomes when the nurses had a high initial certainty. When nurses had a low initial certainty, their certainty after the assessment and the type of assessment predicted the levels of pain and agitation in PWD. Conclusion: Understanding how nurses’ certainty can be compromising after pain assessment and how this relates to pain management in PWD is crucial.","PeriodicalId":38017,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra","volume":"9 1","pages":"271 - 280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000501030","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000501030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Introduction: Pain is still inadequately treated in people with dementia (PWD) due to the complexity of assessing it. Pain assessment in PWD is still challenging because of patient-related or nurse-related factors. The patient-related factors have been studied extensively. However, the nurse-related factors, e.g., nurses’ certainty regarding suspected pain in PWD, have been given little attention by researchers. Purpose: This study aims to investigate how the degree of nurses’ certainty is compromised after pain assessment and how this affects levels of pain and agitation in PWD. Method: A descriptive, correlational design was used, and a convenience sample of 104 nursing home residents with dementia were recruited. Results: This study found that nurses’ certainty after the pain assessment mediates the relationship between the type of pain assessment and patient outcomes when the nurses had a high initial certainty. When nurses had a low initial certainty, their certainty after the assessment and the type of assessment predicted the levels of pain and agitation in PWD. Conclusion: Understanding how nurses’ certainty can be compromising after pain assessment and how this relates to pain management in PWD is crucial.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
痴呆症患者初始疼痛评估后对不同程度疼痛确定性的反应
引言:由于评估的复杂性,痴呆症患者的疼痛仍然没有得到充分的治疗。由于患者或护士相关的因素,痴呆症的疼痛评估仍然具有挑战性。与患者相关的因素已被广泛研究。然而,与护士相关的因素,例如护士对PWD疑似疼痛的确定性,很少受到研究人员的关注。目的:本研究旨在调查疼痛评估后护士的确定度是如何受到影响的,以及这如何影响PWD的疼痛和激动程度。方法:采用描述性相关设计,以104名痴呆症疗养院居民为方便样本。结果:本研究发现,当护士具有较高的初始确定性时,护士在疼痛评估后的确定性介导了疼痛评估类型与患者结果之间的关系。当护士最初的确定性较低时,他们在评估后的确定性和评估类型预测了PWD的疼痛和激动程度。结论:了解护士在疼痛评估后的确定性是如何受损的,以及这与PWD疼痛管理的关系至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: This open access and online-only journal publishes original articles covering the entire spectrum of cognitive dysfunction such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra provides additional contents based on reviewed and accepted submissions to the main journal Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra .
期刊最新文献
The Development of an Intradisciplinary Staff Training Intervention on the Optimal Management of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Qualitative Study. Fear of Dementia among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Germany. Characteristics of Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment Influenced by the Time of Onset. Prevalence of Geriatric Syndromes among Older Outpatients with Dementia. Criterion-Related Validity of the Cognitive Function Score with the Revised Hasegawa's Dementia Scale and the Bedriddenness Rank with the Barthel Index and the Katz Index: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1