AI-assisted pain checks found pain in one in five assessments—but did care improve?
A Canadian long-term-care home recorded 3,826 PainChek assessments and pain in 764 of them. Nurses generally accepted the tool, but the uncontrolled case study did not show whether residents received better treatment or outcomes.
The short version
- What happened
- PainChek was introduced across four units with 160 beds after 18 training sessions. Sixty-five nurses were surveyed before implementation and 12 weeks later during a June-to-October 2024 quality-improvement project.
- Who it affects
- Residents who cannot explain pain may benefit when staff have another structured prompt to look for it. Nurses still make the assessment and treatment decision, and a facial-analysis score should not override clinical context, family knowledge or changes that require urgent medical review.
- What remains unproven
- This was a quality-improvement case study in one Canadian long-term-care home, without randomisation or a concurrent control group.
Keep in mind
This was a quality-improvement case study in one Canadian long-term-care home, without randomisation or a concurrent control group.
The paper reports 3,826 assessments but not the number of unique residents assessed; repeated observations are therefore not independent people.
It did not measure treatment changes, pain relief, adverse effects, responsive behaviour with a validated outcome, hospital use or family experience.
Nurse experience was self-reported, and the 12-week post-implementation window cannot establish sustained use or long-term benefit.
Source analysis · 1 linked source. Primary analysed source date: 31 October 2026.
Read the full report · 4 min The evidence, methods, implications and limitations
The tool combined a facial scan with staff observation
Pain can be missed when residents with dementia or other cognitive impairment cannot describe it reliably. PainChek uses automated facial analysis alongside staff-entered observations of voice, movement, behaviour, activity and bodily signs. A Canadian long-term-care home introduced the commercial app across four units with 160 beds, running 18 training sessions before a 12-week evaluation. Sixty-five nurses completed surveys before implementation and again afterwards.
During the project, staff logged 3,826 assessments and recorded mild-to-severe pain in 764 of them, or 20%. The share of assessments followed by another check increased from 69% in the first month to 78% in the third, while zero-pain scores fell from 14% to 6.2%. Nurses generally rated the tool easy to use and aligned with existing work. Tablet shortages were reported by 20% and the time required by 18% as barriers.[1]
More recorded pain is not yet evidence of better treatment
The study did not find significant changes in nurses' confidence in their own assessments, existing pain-assessment practices or perceived workflow effects. Confidence in the technology's reliability decreased slightly after use, a change reported with p=0.009. That could reflect more informed judgement after hands-on experience, but the design cannot establish why it changed. Nurses were also uncertain that the tool reduced responsive behaviours.
The denominator matters. Four units had 160 beds, but the paper does not report how many unique residents received the 3,826 assessments, so repeated checks cannot be interpreted as 764 people in pain. There was no control unit, random assignment or comparison with care before deployment. The project did not report analgesic changes, comfort, adverse effects, hospital transfers or family experience. CABHI funded the implementation and evaluation but was reported to have no role in the study; the authors declared no competing interests. The next useful evidence is a controlled evaluation linking assessments to treatment decisions and resident outcomes.[1]
The distinction that matters
What the project measured—and what it did not
Assessment activity increased, but treatment and resident outcomes were outside the reported evidence.
Implementation
Train staff and introduce the app across four units
Nurses reported generally high usability and satisfaction
Recorded assessments
Complete 3,826 checks during the evaluation
764 assessments recorded mild-to-severe pain
Care outcome
Link detection to treatment and resident wellbeing
Not measured with a control or patient-outcome comparison