Resident loneliness, social isolation and unplanned emergency department visits from supportive living facilities: a population-based study in Alberta, Canada.
Emergency department visits
Loneliness
Social isolation
Supportive living
Journal
BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 01 2022
03 01 2022
Historique:
received:
03
06
2021
accepted:
13
12
2021
entrez:
4
1
2022
pubmed:
5
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Supportive living (SL) facilities are intended to provide a residential care setting in a less restrictive and more cost-effective way than nursing homes (NH). SL residents with poor social relationships may be at risk for increased health service use. We describe the demographic and health service use patterns of lonely and socially isolated SL residents and to quantify associations between loneliness and social isolation on unplanned emergency department (ED) visits. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population-based linked health administrative data from Alberta, Canada. All SL residents aged 18 to 105 years who had at least one Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) assessment between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2018 were observed. Loneliness and social isolation were measured as a resident indicating that he/she feels lonely and if the resident had neither a primary nor secondary caregiver, respectively. Health service use in the 1 year following assessment included unplanned ED visits, hospital admissions, admission to higher levels of SL, admission to NH and death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models examined the association between loneliness and social isolation on the time to first unplanned ED visit. We identified 18,191 individuals living in Alberta SL facilities. The prevalence of loneliness was 18% (n = 3238), social isolation was 4% (n = 713). Lonely residents had the greatest overall health service use. Risk of unplanned ED visit increased with loneliness (aHR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.15) but did not increase with social isolation (aHR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84-1.06). Lonely residents had a different demographic profile (older, female, cognitively impaired) from socially isolated residents and were more likely to experience an unplanned ED visit. Our findings suggest the need to develop interventions to assist SL care providers with how to identify and address social factors to reduce risk of unplanned ED visits.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Supportive living (SL) facilities are intended to provide a residential care setting in a less restrictive and more cost-effective way than nursing homes (NH). SL residents with poor social relationships may be at risk for increased health service use. We describe the demographic and health service use patterns of lonely and socially isolated SL residents and to quantify associations between loneliness and social isolation on unplanned emergency department (ED) visits.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population-based linked health administrative data from Alberta, Canada. All SL residents aged 18 to 105 years who had at least one Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) assessment between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2018 were observed. Loneliness and social isolation were measured as a resident indicating that he/she feels lonely and if the resident had neither a primary nor secondary caregiver, respectively. Health service use in the 1 year following assessment included unplanned ED visits, hospital admissions, admission to higher levels of SL, admission to NH and death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models examined the association between loneliness and social isolation on the time to first unplanned ED visit.
RESULTS
We identified 18,191 individuals living in Alberta SL facilities. The prevalence of loneliness was 18% (n = 3238), social isolation was 4% (n = 713). Lonely residents had the greatest overall health service use. Risk of unplanned ED visit increased with loneliness (aHR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.15) but did not increase with social isolation (aHR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Lonely residents had a different demographic profile (older, female, cognitively impaired) from socially isolated residents and were more likely to experience an unplanned ED visit. Our findings suggest the need to develop interventions to assist SL care providers with how to identify and address social factors to reduce risk of unplanned ED visits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34979960
doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02718-5
pii: 10.1186/s12877-021-02718-5
pmc: PMC8725434
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 430201
Pays : Canada
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Oct;52(10):1618-25
pubmed: 15450036
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015 Mar;10(2):238-49
pubmed: 25866548
Gerontology. 2016;62(4):443-9
pubmed: 26539997
Ann Behav Med. 2010 Oct;40(2):218-27
pubmed: 20652462
Soc Sci Med. 1987;25(7):825-31
pubmed: 3686111
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999 Nov;54(11):M546-53
pubmed: 10619316
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Jan;51(1):96-100
pubmed: 12534853
Age Ageing. 2000 Mar;29(2):165-72
pubmed: 10791452
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020 Jul;21(7):966-967
pubmed: 32505516
Med Care Res Rev. 2011 Apr;68(2):131-55
pubmed: 20829235
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004 Jun;29(5):593-611
pubmed: 15041083
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Nov;29(11):1429-31
pubmed: 25092012
Gerontologist. 2003 Apr;43 Spec No 2:107-17
pubmed: 12711731
Am J Public Health. 2018 Apr;108(4):e1-e10
pubmed: 29470115
Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655-672
pubmed: 18504506
Gerontologist. 2005 Oct;45 Spec No 1(1):124-32
pubmed: 16230759
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 Nov 1;17(11):994-1005
pubmed: 27349625
J Adv Nurs. 2009 Jun;65(6):1342-52
pubmed: 19291185
Scand J Caring Sci. 2015 Sep;29(3):435-43
pubmed: 24826811
Stat Med. 2017 Nov 30;36(27):4391-4400
pubmed: 28913837
Am J Emerg Med. 2008 May;26(4):454-61
pubmed: 18410815
Can J Aging. 2013 Dec;32(4):333-48
pubmed: 24180746
Age Ageing. 2018 Nov 1;47(6):896-900
pubmed: 30007359
J Aging Health. 2009 Mar;21(2):374-97
pubmed: 19074646
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005 Jul;60(4):S195-204
pubmed: 15980295
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Jul;208:25-33
pubmed: 29758475
JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1919-28
pubmed: 21045098
Health Rep. 2012 Dec;23(4):23-32
pubmed: 23356042
J Gerontol Soc Work. 2015;58(4):338-56
pubmed: 25588026
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Aug;58(8):1538-41
pubmed: 20646104
J Appl Gerontol. 2020 Aug;39(8):846-854
pubmed: 29865907
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Aug 13;76(7):e249-e255
pubmed: 32756931
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Apr;227:84-92
pubmed: 30146450
Drugs Aging. 2017 Jan;34(1):39-53
pubmed: 27830567
J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(5):456-458
pubmed: 32346678
J Gerontol. 1994 Jul;49(4):M174-82
pubmed: 8014392
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 1;14(2):e0211143
pubmed: 30707719
Age Ageing. 2014 Nov;43(6):759-66
pubmed: 25315230