Testing an Educational Nursing Intervention for Pain Assessment and Management in Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a structured educational nursing intervention on pain assessment and management in older hospitalized people. DESIGN: A non-equivalent control group interventional design. SETTING: Geriatric evaluation and management units in two metropolitan Australian hospitals. PATIENTS: In total, 192 patients participated, with 32 different patients recruited consecutively for the pre-intervention, intervention, and 3-month post-intervention stages from each unit. INTERVENTIONS: Nurses in the intervention group received a structured intervention comprising 6 hours of instruction and 2 hours of clinical demonstration. Nurses in the control group received "usual" staff development activities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Five assessment tools for pain were used: the visual analog scale, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised, the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Tool, and the Abbey Pain Scale. Data were also collected on nurses' use of pain assessment tools and their use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods of managing pain. RESULTS: Improvements were observed in pain intensity at rest and on movement in the intervention unit at the post-intervention stage and at the 3-month post-intervention stage. There was also a trend for patients to be prescribed analgesics on a fixed dose schedule following implementation of the program in the intervention unit. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive intervention enabled change in practice and improvements in pain intensity, and the assessment and management of pain. Future research is needed on implementing the intervention with a multidisciplinary team of health professionals in a subacute environment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".