4.2 Article

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC)

Journal

PAIN MANAGEMENT NURSING
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 37-49

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2003.10.001

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation grant
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Career Investigator Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study, conducted in three phases, was to develop a clinically useful observational tool (i.e., the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate [PACSLAC]) to assess pain in seniors with severe dementia. In Phase 1, professional caregivers of seniors with severe dementia were interviewed in order to generate a list of pain-related behaviors that are characteristic of care recipients living in long-term-care facilities. Based on a systematic examination of interview transcripts by experienced researchers and an independent coder, a behavioral checklist (i.e., the initial version of the PACSLAC) was developed. The checklist items were organized into conceptually based subscales (e.g., facial expressions, activity/body movement). Phase 2 focused on an assessment of the internal consistency of the checklist (alpha = .92). Following an item analysis, the subscales of the PACSLAC (Social/Personality/Mood Indicators, Facial Expressions, Activity/Body Movement, and Physiological Indicators/Eating/Sleeping Changes/Vocal Behaviors) were found to be internally consistent. Phase 3 focused on a preliminary validation of the PACSLAC. Analyses suggest that the PACSLAC discriminated among pain events (during which there was a clear and recognizable cause for the patients' pain), events during which patients were experiencing nonpainful distress, and situations during which patients were calm. (C) 2004 by The American Society of Pain Management Nurses

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available