4.2 Review

A Paradigm Shift for Movement-based Pain Assessment in Older Adults: Practice, Policy and Regulatory Drivers

期刊

PAIN MANAGEMENT NURSING
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 21-27

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2020.08.003

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) [K23AR076463-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nursing profession has been at the forefront of pain assessment and management in older adults, with self-report traditionally being the most reliable method. Emerging practices suggest continuously assessing the impact of pain on function and measuring pain during movement-based activities instead of at rest.
Background: The profession of nursing has been on the front line of pain assessment and management in older adults for several decades. Self-report has traditionally been the most reliable pain assessment method, and it remains a priority best practice in identifying the presence and intensity of pain. Although advances in technology, biomarkers, and facial cue recognition now complement self-report, it is still important to maximize self-report of pain and to gather understanding of the total pain experience directly from patients. Practices in pain assessment in older adults have evolved over the past 25 years, and current research and quality improvement studies seek not only to detect the presence of pain, but also to determine the best protocol for assessment and most important pain characteristics to assess. Increasing data are now supporting two emerging practices: (1) consistently assessing the impact of pain on function, and (2) measuring pain during movement-based activities rather than at rest. Objective: The purpose of this article is thus to discuss the shifting paradigm for movement-based pain assessment in older adults, as well as the practice, policy, and regulatory drivers that support this practice change. (C) 2021 American Society for Pain Management Nursing. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据