Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33167897›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2020

Provincial legislative and regulatory standards for pain assessment and management in long-term care homes: a scoping review and in-depth case analysis.

Natasha L Gallant, Allie Peckham, Gregory Marchildon, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos, Blair Roblin, Rhonda J N Stopyn

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Natasha L GallantDepartment of Psychology and Center on Aging and Health, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada.
Allie PeckhamEdson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 550 N 3rd Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA.
Gregory MarchildonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 425-155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada. Greg.Marchildon@utoronto.ca.
Thomas HadjistavropoulosDepartment of Psychology and Center on Aging and Health, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada.
Blair RoblinInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 425-155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Rhonda J N StopynDepartment of Psychology and Center on Aging and Health, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada.
University of Regina · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAArizona State University · US

Funding

AGEWELL WP 6.2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmong Canadian residents living in long-term care (LTC) facilities, and especially among those with limited ability to communicate due to dementia, pain remains underassessed and undermanaged. Although evidence-based clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of pain exist, these clinical guidelines are not widely implemented in LTC facilities. A relatively unexplored avenue for change is the influence that statutes and regulations could exert on pain practices within LTC. This review is therefore aimed at identifying the current landscape of policy levers used across Canada to assess and manage pain among LTC residents and to evaluate the extent to which they are concordant with evidence-based clinical guidelines proposed by an international consensus group consisting of both geriatric pain and public policy experts.

methodsUsing scoping review methodology, a search for peer-reviewed journal articles and government documents pertaining to pain in Canadian LTC facilities was carried out. This scoping review was complemented by an in-depth case analysis of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario statutes and regulations.

resultsAcross provinces, pain was highly prevalent and was associated with adverse consequences among LTC residents. The considerable benefits of using a standardized pain assessment protocol, along with the barriers in implementing such a protocol, were identified. For most provinces, pain assessment and management in LTC residents was not specifically addressed in their statutes or regulations. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, regulations mandate the use of the interRAI suite of assessment tools for the assessment and reporting of pain.

conclusionThe prevalence of pain and the benefits of implementing standardized pain assessment protocols has been reported in the research literature. Despite occasional references to pain, however, existing regulations do not recommend assessments of pain at the frequency specified by experts. Insufficient direction on the use of specialized pain assessment tools (especially in the case of those with limited ability to communicate) that minimize reliance on subjective judgements was also identified in current regulations. Existing policies therefore fail to adequately address the underassessment and undermanagement of pain in older adults residing in LTC facilities in ways that are aligned with expert consensus.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareAgedHumansOntarioPain MeasurementReference StandardsSaskatchewanCanadaLong-term carePain assessmentPain managementQuality standards

Identifiers

PMID33167897
PMCPMC7650170
OpenAlexW3102857896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.