Sex-based trajectories of health system use in lonely and not lonely older people: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in understanding the care needs of lonely people but studies are limited and examine healthcare settings separately. We estimated and compared healthcare trajectories in lonely and not lonely older female and male respondents to a national health survey. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling, Ontario respondents (65+ years) to the 2008/2009 Canadian Community Health Survey-Healthy Aging. Respondents were classified at baseline as not lonely, moderately lonely, or severely lonely using the Three-Item Loneliness Scale and then linked with health administrative data to assess healthcare transitions over a 12 -year observation period. Annual risks of moving from the community to inpatient, long-stay home care, long-term care settings-and death-were estimated across loneliness levels using sex-stratified multistate models. RESULTS: Of 2684 respondents (58.8% female sex; mean age 77 years [standard deviation: 8]), 635 (23.7%) experienced moderate loneliness and 420 (15.6%) severe loneliness. Fewer lonely respondents remained in the community with no transitions (not lonely, 20.3%; moderately lonely, 17.5%; and severely lonely, 12.6%). Annual transition risks from the community to home care and long-term care were higher in female respondents and increased with loneliness severity for both sexes (e.g., 2-year home care risk: 6.1% [95% CI 5.5-6.6], 8.4% [95% CI 7.4-9.5] and 9.4% [95% CI 8.2-10.9] in female respondents, and 3.5% [95% CI 3.1-3.9], 5.0% [95% CI 4.0-6.0], and 5.4% [95% CI 4.0-6.8] in male respondents; 5-year long-term care risk: 9.2% [95% CI 8.0-10.8], 11.1% [95% CI 9.3-13.6] and 12.2% [95% CI 9.9-15.3] [female], and 5.3% [95% CI 4.2-6.7], 9.1% [95% CI 6.8-12.5], and 10.9% [95% CI 7.9-16.3] [male]). CONCLUSIONS: Lonely older female and male respondents were more likely to need home care and long-term care, with severely lonely female respondents having the highest probability of moving to these settings.

Unpaid Family Caregiving-The Next Frontier of Gender Equity in a Postpandemic Future.

This Viewpoint discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the critical role of unpaid family caregiving.

Characteristics and practice patterns of family physicians who provide home visits in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Physician home visits are essential for populations who cannot easily access office-based primary care. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics, practice patterns and physician-level patient characteristics of Ontario physicians who provide home visits. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, based on health administrative data, of Ontario physicians who provided home visits and their patients, between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2019. We selected family physicians who had at least 1 home visit in 2019. Physician demographic characteristics, practice patterns and aggregated patient characteristics were compared between high-volume home visit physicians (the top 5%) and low-volume home visit physicians (bottom 95%). RESULTS: A total of 6572 family physicians had at least 1 home visit in 2019. The top 5% of home visit physicians (n = 330) performed 58.6% of all home visits (n = 227 321 out of 387 139). Compared with low-volume home visit physicians (n = 6242), the top 5% were more likely to be male and practise in large urban areas, and rarely saw patients who were enrolled to them (median 4% v. 87.5%, standardized mean difference 1.12). High-volume physicians' home visit patients were younger, had greater levels of health care resource utilization, resided in lower-income and large urban neighbourhoods, and were less likely to have a medical home. INTERPRETATION: A small subset of home visit physicians provided a large proportion of home visits in Ontario. These home visits may be addressing a gap in access to primary care for certain patients, but could be contributing to lower continuity of care.

The association between frailty, long-term care home characteristics and COVID-19 mortality before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The relative contributions of long-term care (LTC) resident frailty and home-level characteristics on COVID-19 mortality has not been well studied. We examined the association between resident frailty and home-level characteristics with 30-day COVID-19 mortality before and after the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in LTC. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of LTC residents with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Ontario, Canada. We used multi-level multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between 30-day COVID-19 mortality, the Hubbard Frailty Index (FI), and resident and home-level characteristics. We compared explanatory models before and after vaccine availability. RESULTS: There were 11,179 and 3,655 COVID-19 cases in the pre- and post-vaccine period, respectively. The 30-day COVID-19 mortality was 25.9 and 20.0% during the same periods. The median odds ratios for 30-day COVID-19 mortality between LTC homes were 1.50 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.41-1.65) and 1.62 (95% CrI: 1.46-1.96), respectively. In the pre-vaccine period, 30-day COVID-19 mortality was higher for males and those of greater age. For every 0.1 increase in the Hubbard FI, the odds of death were 1.49 (95% CI: 1.42-1.56) times higher. The association between frailty and mortality remained consistent in the post-vaccine period, but sex and age were partly attenuated. Despite the substantial home-level variation, no home-level characteristic examined was significantly associated with 30-day COVID-19 mortality during either period. INTERPRETATION: Frailty is consistently associated with COVID-19 mortality before and after the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Home-level characteristics previously attributed to COVID-19 outcomes do not explain significant home-to-home variation in COVID-19 mortality.

Variations in long-term care home resident hospitalizations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the demographic and clinical characteristics, in-hospital care, and outcomes of long-term care residents admitted to general medicine wards for non-COVID-19 reasons. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of long-term care residents admitted to general medicine wards, for reasons other than COVID-19, in four hospitals in Toronto, Ontario between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We used an autoregressive linear model to estimate the change in monthly admission volumes during the pandemic period (March-December 2020) compared to the previous two years, adjusting for any secular trend. We summarized and compared differences in the demographics, comorbidities, interventions, diagnoses, imaging, psychoactive medications, and outcomes of residents before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Our study included 2,654 long-term care residents who were hospitalized for non-COVID-19 reasons between January 2018 and December 2020. The crude rate of hospitalizations was 79.3 per month between March-December of 2018-2019 and 56.5 per month between March-December of 2020. The was an adjusted absolute difference of 27.0 (95% CI: 10.0, 43.9) fewer hospital admissions during the pandemic period, corresponding to a relative drop of 34%. Residents admitted during the pandemic period had similar demographics and clinical characteristics but were more likely to be admitted for delirium (pandemic: 7% pre-pandemic: 5%, p = 0.01) and were less likely to be admitted for pneumonia (pandemic: 3% pre-pandemic: 6%, p = 0.004). Residents admitted during the pandemic were more likely to be prescribed antipsychotics (pandemic: 37%, pre-pandemic: 29%, p <0.001) and more likely to die in-hospital (pandemic:14% pre-pandemic: 10%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Better integration between long-term care and hospitals systems, including programs to deliver urgent medical care services within long-term care homes, is needed to ensure that long-term care residents maintain equitable access to acute care during current and future public health emergencies.

Physician home visits in Ontario: a cross-sectional analysis of patient characteristics and postvisit use of health care services.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown how much of current physician home visit volume is driven by low-complexity or low-continuity visits. Our objectives were to measure physician home visit volumes and costs in Ontario from 2005/06 to 2018/19, and to compare patient characteristics and postvisit use of health care services across home visit types. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using health administrative data. We examined annual physician home visit volumes and costs from 2005/06 to 2018/19 in Ontario, and characteristics and postvisit use of health care services of residents who received at least 1 home visit from any physician in 2014/15 to 2018/19. We categorized home visits as palliative, provided to a patient who also received home care services or "other," and compared characteristics and outcomes between groups. RESULTS: A total of 4 418 334 physician home visits were performed between 2005/06 and 2018/19. More than half (2 256 667 [51.1%]) were classified as "other" and accounted for 39.1% ($22 million) of total annual physician billing costs. From 2014/15 to 2018/19, of the 413 057 home visit patients, 240 933 (58.3%) were adults aged 65 or more, and 323 283 (78.3%) lived in large urban areas. Compared to the palliative care and home care groups, the "other" group was younger, had fewer comorbidities, and had lower rates of emergency department visits and hospital admissions in the 30 days after the visit. INTERPRETATION: About half of physician home visits in 2014/15 to 2018/19 were to patients who were receiving neither palliative care nor home care, a group that was younger and healthier, and had low use of health care services after the visit. There is an opportunity to refine policy tools to target patients most likely to benefit from physician home visits.

Rates of health services use among residents of retirement homes in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Because there are no standardized reporting systems specific to residents of retirement homes in North America, little is known about the health of this distinct population of older adults. We evaluated rates of health services use by residents of retirement homes relative to those of residents of long-term care homes and other populations of older adults. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population health administrative data from 2018 on adults 65 years or older in Ontario. We matched the postal codes of individuals to those of licensed retirement homes to identify residents of retirement homes. Outcomes included rates of hospital-based care and physician visits. RESULTS: We identified 54 733 residents of 757 retirement homes (mean age 86.7 years, 69.0% female) and 2 354 385 residents of other settings. Compared to residents of long-term care homes, residents of retirement homes had significantly higher rates per 1000 person months of emergency department visits (10.62 v. 4.48, adjusted relative rate [RR] 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.55 to 2.67), hospital admissions (5.42 v. 2.08, adjusted RR 2.77, 95% CI 2.71 to 2.82), alternate level of care (ALC) days (6.01 v. 2.96, adjusted RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.54), and specialist physician visits (6.27 v. 3.21, adjusted RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.61 to 1.68), but a significantly lower rate of primary care visits (16.71 v. 108.47, adjusted RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.14). INTERPRETATION: Residents of retirement homes are a distinct population with higher rates of hospital-based care. Our findings can help to inform policy debates about the need for more coordinated primary and supportive health care in privately operated congregate care homes.

Homebound status among older adult home care recipients in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Homebound status is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality in older adults, yet little is known about homebound older adults in Canada. Our objectives were to describe time trends in the prevalence of homebound status among community-dwelling long-term home care recipients and the characteristics associated with homebound status. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional and cohort study using linked health administrative data in Canada's most populous province, Ontario. We included adults aged 65 years and older who received at least one long-term home care assessment from 2006 to 2017 (N = 666,514). Homebound individuals were those who exited the home an average of 0-1 days/week over the previous 30 days; not homebound comparators exited the home 2-7 days per week. We compared baseline characteristics between groups and estimated the association between these characteristics and homebound status at baseline and over time. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2017, the annual proportion of long-term home care recipients who were homebound increased from 48% to 65%. At first assessment, 50% of the cohort (331,836 of 666,514) were homebound. Among those with a 4-12 month repeat assessment, homebound status persisted over time for 80%, and developed anew in 24%. Dependency on others for locomotion, use of an assistive device, poor access to dwelling, older age, and female sex were most strongly associated with homebound status at baseline, as well as its development and persistence over time. CONCLUSIONS: We found that half of Ontario older adult long-stay home care clients were homebound at the time of their first assessment, and that the prevalence of homebound status among home care recipients rose steadily from 2006 to 2017. This informs further research and policy development to ensure the adequacy of supports for older homebound persons.

Écart de mobilité : estimation des seuils de mobilité requis pour maîtriser le SRAS-CoV-2 au Canada.

CONTEXTE: Les interventions non pharmacologiques demeurent le principal moyen de maîtriser le coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) d'ici à ce que la couverture vaccinale soit suffisante pour donner lieu à une immunité collective. Nous avons utilisé des données de mobilité anonymisées de téléphones intelligents afin de quantifier le niveau de mobilité requis pour maîtriser le SRAS-CoV-2 (c.-à-d., seuil de mobilité), et la différence par rapport au niveau de mobilité observé (c.-à-d., écart de mobilité). MÉTHODES: Nous avons procédé à une analyse de séries chronologiques sur l'incidence hebdomadaire du SRAS-CoV-2 au Canada entre le 15 mars 2020 et le 6 mars 2021. Le paramètre mesuré était le taux de croissance hebdomadaire, défini comme le rapport entre les cas d'une semaine donnée et ceux de la semaine précédente. Nous avons mesuré les effets du temps moyen passé hors domicile au cours des 3 semaines précédentes à l'aide d'un modèle de régression log-normal, en tenant compte de la province, de la semaine et de la température moyenne. Nous avons calculé le seuil de mobilité et l'écart de mobilité pour le SRAS-CoV-2. RÉSULTATS: Au cours des 51 semaines de l'étude, en tout, 888 751 personnes ont contracté le SRAS-CoV-2. Chaque augmentation de 10 % de l'écart de mobilité a été associée à une augmentation de 25 % du taux de croissance des cas hebdomadaires de SRAS-CoV-2 (rapport 1,25, intervalle de confiance à 95 % 1,20­1,29). Comparativement à la mobilité prépandémique de référence de 100 %, le seuil de mobilité a été plus élevé au cours de l'été (69 %, écart interquartile [EI] 67 %­70 %), et a chuté à 54 % pendant l'hiver 2021 (EI 52 %­55 %); un écart de mobilité a été observé au Canada entre juillet 2020 et la dernière semaine de décembre 2020. INTERPRÉTATION: La mobilité permet de prédire avec fiabilité et constance la croissance des cas hebdomadaires et il faut maintenir des niveaux faibles de mobilité pour maîtriser le SRAS-CoV-2 jusqu'à la fin du printemps 2021. Les données de mobilité anonymisées des téléphones intelligents peuvent servir à guider le relâchement ou le resserrement des mesures de distanciation physique provinciales et régionales.