Behavioral Pain Assessment Implementation in Long-Term Care Using a Tablet App: Case Series and Quasi-Experimental Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is often underassessed and undertreated among long-term care (LTC) residents living with dementia. When used regularly, the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC) scales have been shown to have beneficial effects on pain assessment and management practices and stress and burnout levels in frontline staff in LTC facilities. Such scales, however, are not utilized as often as recommended, which is likely to be related to additional record-keeping and tracking over time involved with their paper-and-pencil administration. OBJECTIVE: Using implementation science principles, we assessed the introduction of the PACSLAC-II scale by comparing two methods of administration-a newly developed tablet app version and the original paper-and-pencil version-with respect to the frequency of pain assessment and facility staff feedback. METHODS: Using a case series approach, we tracked pain-related quality indicators at baseline, implementation, and follow-up periods. A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the effect of the method of administration (ie, paper-and-pencil only [n=18], tablet only [n=12], paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app [n=31], and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil [n=31]) on pain assessment frequency and frontline staff stress and burnout levels. Finally, semistructured interviews were conducted with frontline staff to obtain perspectives on each method of administration. RESULTS: The implementation effort resulted in a great increase in pain assessment frequency across 7 independent LTC units, although these increases were not maintained during the follow-up period. Frontline staff reported lower levels of workload in the paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app condition than those in the paper-and-pencil only (P<.001) and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil (P<.001) conditions. Frontline staff also reported lower levels of workload in the tablet-only condition than those in the paper-and-pencil only condition (P=.05). Similarly, lower levels of emotional exhaustion were reported by frontline staff in the paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app condition than those in the paper-and-pencil only (P=.002) and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil (P=.002) conditions. Finally, frontline staff reported higher levels of depersonalization in the paper-and-pencil only condition than those in the tablet app only (P=.008), paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app (P<.001), and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil (P<.001) conditions. Furthermore, narrative data from individual interviews with frontline staff revealed a preference for the tablet app over the paper-and-pencil method of administration. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the use of either the tablet app or the paper-and-pencil version of the PACSLAC-II to improve pain-related quality indicators, but a reported preference for and lower levels of stress and burnout with the use of the tablet app method of administration suggests that the use of the tablet app may have more advantages compared with the paper-and-pencil method of administration.
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 | 0.001 | 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".