4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Persistent nonmalignant pain and analgesic prescribing patterns in elderly nursing home residents

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 867-874

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52251.x

关键词

persistent pain; analgesics; nursing home

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG04390, AG08812] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of analgesics used, their prescribing patterns, and associations with particular diagnoses and medications in patients with persistent pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nursing homes from 10 U.S. states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21,380 nursing home residents aged 65 and older with persistent pain. MEASUREMENTS: Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments on pain, analgesics, cognitive, functional, and emotional status were summarized. Logistic regression models identified diagnoses associated with different analgesic classes. RESULTS: Persistent pain as determined using the MDS was identified in 49% of residents with an average age of 83; 83% were female. Persistent pain was prevalent in patients with a history of fractures (62.9%) or surgery (63.6%) in the past 6 months. One-quarter received no analgesics. The most common analgesics were acetaminophen (37.2%), propoxyphene (18.2%), hydrocodone (6.8%), and tramadol (5.4%). Only 46.9% of all analgesics were given as standing doses. Acetaminophen was usually prescribed as needed (65.6%), at doses less than 1,300 mg per day. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were prescribed as a standing dose more than 70% of the time, and one-third of NSAIDs were prescribed at high doses. CONCLUSION: In nursing home residents, persistent pain is highly prevalent, there is suboptimal compliance with geriatric prescribing recommendations, and acute pain may be an important contributing source of persistent pain. More effective provider education and research is needed to determine whether treatment of acute pain could prevent persistent pain.

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

4.6
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