Pain Assessment in a Geriatric Psychiatry Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of pain in older persons with psychiatric illness is particularly challenging for health care professionals. There are few well-tested pain assessment tools for this population. OBJECTIVES: A study was conducted to explore pain assessment and management issues in geriatric psychiatry. METHODS: Seventy-four staff members of a geriatric psychiatry service at Regional Mental Health Care London, St Joseph's Health Care London, London, Ontario completed a survey to assess current pain assessment and management practice for geriatric psychiatry patients, and to identify indicators used to assess pain in this population. The results of the survey were later shared with members of the program's pain management team in a focus group discussion to explore opportunities on how to transfer these findings into clinical practice. RESULTS: The majority of survey respondents (91.8%) agreed that pain assessment and management could be improved for patients; only 14.9% reported that there was a consistent approach to pain management. Misconceptions and attitudes about pain, lack of easily administered pain tools, inconsistent monitoring of pain, and lack of documentation of pain symptoms and indicators were identified as significant barriers to optimal pain management for their patients. A number of behaviours indicative of pain were identified but emphasis was placed on recognition of changes from usual behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study highlight the need for a comprehensive, practical and consistent approach to pain assessment and management, and provide insight into the critical components, including behavioural indicators, that could be incorporated into a pain protocol to be used with this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".