Factors associated with transition to a nursing home in older adults living in naturally occurring retirement communities.

BACKGROUND: Naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) are geographic areas (generally high-rise buildings or neighborhoods) that have a high concentration of individuals 65 years and older. Supportive service programs in NORCs can address resident needs and delay nursing home (NH) admission but understanding what factors are associated with NORC residents requiring NH admission is needed to tailor such programs. Our aim was to examine individual- and neighborhood-level factors associated with NH wait-list status in NORC residents in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study of Ontario adults 65 years of age or older living in a NORC building as of January 1, 2020, by linking a provincial registry of NORC high-rise buildings with health administrative data. Older adults were classified as being on the NH wait-list if they had an open application for a NH on the index date. We conducted a multilevel logistic regression analysis using generalized estimating equations to determine individual- and neighborhood-level factors associated with NH wait-list status, including sociodemographic, clinical, healthcare use, and building factors. We explored the role of sex and age through stratification by sex (male, female) and age (65-80 and 80+ years). RESULTS: Among 220,864 NORC residents, 4710 individuals (2.1%) were on the NH wait-list. Female sex, older age, immigrant status, dementia diagnosis, receiving homecare, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy (five or more unique drug names) were associated with an increased odds of wait-list status. Several neighborhood-level variables were associated with a significantly increased likelihood of wait-list status, including low income, high dependency, high ethnic diversity, and living in a building with supports. CONCLUSION: NORC supportive service programs can be tailored to account for the factors associated with NH wait-list status, allowing NORC residents who are living in the community to age in their desired place and achieve optimal health outcomes.

Primary Care Clinical Volumes, Cholesterol Testing, and Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the annual number of primary care physician (PCP) unique outpatient assessments, which we refer to as clinical volume, translates into better cardiovascular preventive care. We examined the relationship between PCP outpatient clinical volumes and cholesterol testing and major adverse cardiovascular event rates among guideline-recommended eligible patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted as part of the Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team (CANHEART) cohort, a population-based cohort of almost all adult residents of Ontario, Canada, followed from 2008 to 2012. For each clinical volume quintile, we compared cholesterol testing and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as time to first event of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: The 10,037 PCPs evaluated had an annualized median volume of 2303 clinical encounters (IQR 1292-3680). Among 4,740,380 patients, 84% underwent guideline-concordant cholesterol testing at least once over 5 years, ranging from 73% with the lowest clinical volume quintile physicians to 86% with the highest. After multivariable adjustment, there was a 10.5% relative increase in the probability of cholesterol testing for every doubling of clinical volumes (95% CI 9.7-11.4; P < 0.001). Patients treated by the lowest volume quintile physicians had the highest rate of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (compared with the highest volume quintile physicians: adjusted HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.21; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients of physicians with the lowest clinical volumes received less frequent cholesterol testing and had the highest rate of incident cardiovascular events. Further research investigating the drivers of this relationship is warranted.

Eligibility and Implementation of Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombosis in Clinical Practice-Insights From the CANHEART Study.

Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial decreased major adverse cardiovascular events with very low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease. We examined the eligibility and potential real-world impact of this strategy on the COMPASS-eligible population. Methods and Results COMPASS eligibility criteria were applied to the CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) registry, a population-based cohort of Ontario adults. We compared 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding rates stratified by COMPASS eligibility and by clinical risk factors. We applied COMPASS trial rivaroxaban/aspirin arm hazard ratios to estimate the potential impact on the COMPASS-eligible cohort. Among 362 797 patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease, 38% were deemed eligible, 47% ineligible, and 15% indeterminate. Among eligible patients, a greater number of risk factors was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular outcomes, whereas bleeding rates increased minimally. Over 5 years, applying COMPASS treatment effects to eligible patients resulted in a 2.4% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and a number needed to treat of 42, and a 1.3% absolute risk increase of major bleeding and number needed to harm (NNH) of 77. Those with at least 2 risk factors had a 3.0% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (number needed to treat =34) and a 1.6% absolute risk increase of major bleeding (number needed to harm =61). Conclusions Implementation of very-low-dose rivaroxaban therapy would potentially impact ≈$$ \approx $$2 in 5 patients with atherosclerotic disease in Ontario. Eligible individuals with ≥$$ \ge $$2 comorbidities represent a high-risk subgroup that may derive the greatest benefit-to-risk ratio. Selection of patients with high-risk predisposing factors appears appropriate in routine practice.