RESUMO
Background: Social vulnerability is the accumulation of disadvantageous social circumstances resulting in susceptibility to adverse health outcomes. Associated with increased mortality, cognitive decline, and disability, social vulnerability has primarily been studied in large population databases rather than frail hospitalized individuals. We examined how social vulnerability contributes to hospital outcomes and use of hospital resources for older adults presenting to the Emergency Department. Methods: We analyzed patients 65 years of age or older admitted through the Emergency Department and consulted to internal medicine or geriatrics at a Canadian tertiary care hospital from July 2009 to September 2020. A 20-item social vulnerability index (SVI) and a 57-item frailty index (FI) were calculated, using a deficit accumulation approach. Outcomes were length of stay (LOS), extended hospital LOS designation, alternative level of care (ALC) designation, in-hospital mortality, and discharge to long-term care (LTC). Results: In 1,146 patients (mean age 80.5±8.3, 54.0% female), mean SVI was 0.40±0.16 and FI was 0.44±0.14. The SVI scores were not associated with admission to hospital. Amongst those admitted, for every 0.1 unit increase in SVI, LOS increased by 1.15 days (p<.001) after adjusting for age, sex and FI. SVI was associated with staying over the expected LOS (aOR: 1.19, 1.05-1.34, p=.009) and ALC status (aOR 1.39, 1.12-1.74, p<.004). SVI was not associated with in-hospital mortality, but was associated with incident discharge to LTC (aOR 1.03, 1.02-1.04, p<.001). Conclusion: Independent of frailty, being socially vulnerable was associated with increased LOS, designation as ALC, and being discharged to LTC from hospital. Consideration of social vulnerability's influence on prolonged hospitalization and long-term care needs has implications for screening and hospital resources.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Older adults want to live at home as long as possible, even in the face of circumstances that limit their autonomy. Home care services reflect this emergent preference, allowing older adults to 'age in place' in familiar settings rather than receiving care for chronic health conditions or ageing needs in an institutionalized setting. Numerous social factors, generally studied in isolation, have been associated with home care utilization. Even so, social circumstances are complex and how these factors collectively influence home care use patterns remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To provide a broad and comprehensive overview of the social factors influencing home care utilization; and to evaluate the influence of discrete social factors on patterns of home care utilization in community-dwelling older adults in high-income countries. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted of six electronic databases for records published between 2010 and 2020; additional records were obtained from hand searching review articles, reference lists of included studies and documents from international organisations. A narrative synthesis was presented, complemented by vote counting per social factor, harvest plots and an evaluation of aggregated findings to determine consistency across studies. RESULTS: A total of 2,365 records were identified, of which 66 met inclusion criteria. There were 35 discrete social factors grouped into four levels of influence using a socio-ecological model (individual, relationship, community and societal levels) and grouped according to outcome of interest (home care propensity and intensity). Across all studies, social factors consistently showing any association (positive, negative, or equivocal in pattern) with home care propensity were: age, ethnicity/race, self-assessed health, insurance, housing ownership, housing problems, marital status, household income, children, informal caregiving, social networks and urban/rural area. Age, education, personal finances, living arrangements and housing ownership were associated with home care intensity, also with variable patterns in utilization. Additional community and societal level factors were identified as relevant but lacking consistency across the literature; these included rurality, availability of community services, methods of financing home care systems, and cultural determinants. CONCLUSION: This is the first literature review bringing together a wide range of reported social factors that influence home care utilization. It confirms social factors do influence home care utilization in complex interactions, distinguishes level of influences at which these factors affect patterns of use and discusses policy implications for home care reform.
