Managing "socially admitted" patients in hospital: a qualitative study of health care providers' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments are a last resort for some socially vulnerable patients without an acute medical illness (colloquially known as "socially admitted" patients), resulting in their occupation of hospital beds typically designated for patients requiring acute medical care. In this study, we aimed to explore the perceptions of health care providers regarding patients admitted as "social admissions." METHODS: This qualitative study was informed by grounded theory and involved semistructured interviews at a Nova Scotia tertiary care centre. From October 2022 to July 2023, we interviewed eligible participants, including any health care clinician or administrator who worked directly with "socially admitted" patients. Virtual or in-person individual interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, then independently and iteratively coded. We mapped themes on the 5 domains of the Quintuple Aim conceptual framework. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 nurses, physicians, administrators, and social workers. Most identified as female (n = 11) and White (n = 13), and were in their mid to late career (n = 13). We categorized 9 themes into 5 domains: patient experience (patient description, provision of care); care team well-being (moral distress, hierarchy of care); health equity (stigma and missed opportunities, prejudices); cost of care (wait-lists and scarcity of alternatives); and population health (factors leading to vulnerability, system changes). Participants described experiences caring for "socially admitted" patients, perceptions and assumptions underlying "social" presentations, system barriers to care delivery, and suggestions of potential solutions. INTERPRETATION: Health care providers viewed "socially admitted" patients as needing enhanced care but identified individual, institutional, and system challenges that impeded its realization. Examining perceptions of the people who care for "socially admitted" patients offers insights to guide clinicians and policy-makers in caring for socially vulnerable patients.

Social Vulnerability and Frailty in Hospitalized Older Adults.

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.

The relative impact of socioeconomic position and frailty varies by population setting.

Introduction: Frailty and socioeconomic position (SEP) are well-established determinants of health. However, we know less about the contributions of frailty and SEP in older adults, especially in acute settings. We set out to answer how frailty and SEP might influence health outcomes in older people, comparing a population sample and patients managed by a speciality acute frailty service. Methods: We used the Delirium and Population Health Informatics Cohort, a population sample of 1510 individuals aged ≥70 years from the London Borough of Camden and 1750 acute frailty patients. SEP was determined using the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Linear and Cox proportional hazard regression models were conducted to assess SEP on frailty, readmission, and mortality outcomes. Results: In the population sample, SEP was significantly associated with frailty and mortality with successive increases in rate of death for each IMD quintile (HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.49, P < 0.005). Increasing SEP, age, and admission status among hospitalized individuals were associated with greater frailty. For individuals seen by the speciality frailty service, SEP was not associated with frailty, mortality, or readmission. Discussion: When older people experience acute illness severe enough to require secondary care, particularly specialist services, this overcomes any prior advantages conferred by a higher SEP.

Social factors influencing utilization of home care in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review.

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.