The Functional Pain Scale: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in an elderly population.

OBJECTIVES: Because of difficulty experienced in assessing pain in frail older patients and the lack of pain assessment tools with standardization in the elderly, the Functional Pain Scale (FPS), an instrument incorporating both subjective and objective components to assess pain, was developed and evaluated. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES: One hundred subjects more than 65 years old participated in the validity, reliability, and responsiveness (the clinical sensitivity of the instrument to change) testing of the Functional Pain Scale. Subjects were recruited from a geriatrics inpatient setting, a geriatrics outpatient setting, and a local hospice (residing in their homes). Ninety-four of the subjects completed all phases of testing. Reliability was tested using a test-retest format and a correlation matrix. Criterion-related validity was established as compared with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Present Pain Intensity (PPI), the McGill Short Form Questionnaire (MPQ-SF), and the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) instruments. Responsiveness for the FPS, the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS instruments was determined using five previously described techniques: effect size, standardized response means, relative efficiency, direct comparison of t test scores, and direct comparison of P values. A cumulative index was developed to rank each scale. Cumulative responsiveness index scores were based on individual scale performance for each separate responsiveness test. The lowest score in the cumulative responsiveness index indicated the most responsive scale. RESULTS: Interrater reliability for instruments tested exceeded 0.95 for all instruments tested. Validity testing showed high correlations as well (r = 0.62, r = 0.85, r = 0.80, r = 0.90 for the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS respectively). Responsiveness evaluated overall by the responsiveness index was best for the Functional Pain Scale (7) followed by the Visual Analog Scale (12), the Present Pain Intensity (13), the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (19), and the Numerical Pain Questionnaire (24). CONCLUSIONS: The Functional Pain Scale was determined to be reliable, valid, and responsive. The responsiveness of the Functional Pain Scale was superior to the other instruments tested. The Functional Pain Scale is an acceptable instrument for assessing pain in older adults and may reflect changes in pain better than other instruments tested. Further testing in other populations is warranted.

The Frail Elderly Functional Assessment questionnaire: its responsiveness and validity in alternative settings.

OBJECTIVE: To test the Frail Elderly Functional Assessment (FEFA) questionnaire for responsiveness (sensitivity to change) to low-level functional tasks in a frail elderly cohort and to evaluate its validity over the telephone or when administered to a caregiver proxy. SUBJECTS: Fifty-eight elderly patients from three urban inpatient rehabilitation settings and an outpatient geriatrics center. METHODS: A prospective, clinical, comparative trial. The FEFA questionnaire was administered serially. For validity, subjects were observed performing the tasks on the questionnaire within 24 hours of each interview. For responsiveness, repeat measures were performed within a 1- to 2-week period. Validity and sensitivity to change (responsiveness) of the questionnaire were determined by correlating patient responses to direct observations by rehabilitation staff. Responsiveness was also determined based on the Guyatt technique that divides clinically significant change by the normal variance, sigma/(2x [mean squared error])1/2, as well as by measures of effect size, standardized response means, and relative efficiency tests for responsiveness. To evaluate FEFA validity in alternative settings, kappa statistic and regression analyses were used based on the previously validated interviewer-administered format. RESULTS: Responsiveness was excellent with effect size (.35), standardized response means (.48), and relative efficiency (2.67) tests as well as Guyatt (1.26). There was 83% agreement when compared with FEFA task performance. Regression between change in FEFA score versus performance testing was significant (r2 = .33; p = .01). ANOVA was significant at a p = .03 for FEFA scores at first measure in rehabilitation compared to second. Correlation for caregiver proxy administration was .92 (p< or =.0001) and for telephone administration was .99 (p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FEFA questionnaire, previously demonstrated to be reliable and valid, is sensitive to functional change (responsive) in frail elderly people. It is also valid when administered by phone or to a caregiver proxy.

Nursing management of urinary incontinence in geriatric inpatients.

The management and treatment of incontinence represent two interrelated areas--providing enough providers of care and describing the types of management and treatment options available to the incontinent patient. This article has stressed that adequate staffing underlies any successful program of continence management and treatment. In addition, many options for the management and treatment of incontinence in the elderly have been presented. Of importance are the specific nursing implications that will make many continence protocols successful. These guidelines can provide the basis for planning patient care through the nursing process. This article has also addressed management and treatment strategies for incontinence that not only improve incontinence in patients but may cure it. These include behavioral management strategies which nurses should be encouraged to use in treating incontinent patients in the community. These same behavioral management strategies are being studied in inpatient settings, and the results indicate that nurses in inpatient settings and long-term care facilities should implement behavioral treatment programs for incontinent patients.