Skip to main content

Table 2 Frequency and bivariate sub-hazard ratios of admission into a Home Care programme or a Nursing Home during the 8-year follow-up in relation to the baseline Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

From: The impact of frailty on admission to home care services and nursing homes: eight-year follow-up of a community-dwelling, older adult, Spanish cohort

VARIABLES N ALL N = 616 Death12 n = 95 HOME CARE NURSING HOME
No HC n = 403 HC n = 118 Sub-hazard Ratio13 [CI95%] No NH n = 470 NH n = 51 Sub-hazard Ratio13 [CI95%]
BADL (Barthel1), mean (SD) 616 96.5 (7.0) 95.5 (9.8) 97.5 (5.7) 94.1 (7.7) 1.0 [1.0;1.0] 97.1 (5.3) 93.1 (12.1) 1.0 [1.0;0.98]
IADL (Lawton & Brody2), n (%) 615  
Independent   472 (76.7%) 63 (66.3%) 336 (83.4%) 73 (62.4%) Ref. 373 (79.5%) 36 (70.6%) Ref.
Mild Dependence   103 (16.7%) 23 (24.2%) 54 (13.4%) 26 (22.2%) 1.7 [1.1;2.6] 73 (15.6%) 7 (13.7%) 0.9 [0.4;2.1]
Moderate + Severe Dependence   40 (6.5%) 9 (9.5%) 13 (3.2%) 18 (15.4%) 4.8 [2.8;8.3] 23 (4.9%) 8 (15.7%) 4.5 [2.0;9.9]
Mobility assessment (Timed-up-and-go test3), mean (SD) 599 13.0 (6.8) 14.6 (7.4) 11.8 (5.5) 16.2 (9.0) 1.1 [1.0;1.1] 12.4 (6.4) 15.5 (8.4) 1.1 [1.0;1.1]
Cognitive status (MEC4), mean (SD) 614 27.0 (3.7) 26.6 (3.6) 27.4 (3.6) 26.2 (3.9) 0.9 [0.9;1.0] 27.3 (3.6) 25.6 (3.8) 0.9 [0.9;1.0]
Affective status (GDS5) mean (SD) 607 3.8 (3.3) 4.2 (3.2) 3.6 (3.3) 4.3 (3.1) 1.1 [1.0;1.1] 3.6 (3.2) 5.1 (3.8) 1.1 [1.0;1.2]
Nutritional assessment (MNA-SF6), mean (SD) 604 12.9 (1.6) 12.6 (1.8) 13.0 (1.6) 12.8 (1.6) 0.9 [0.9;1.0] 13.0 (1.6) 12.6 (1.8) 0.9 [0.8;1.0]
Visual impairment (Jaeger Card7), n (%) 611 195 (31.9%) 34 (35.8%) 112 (28.0%) 49 (42.2%) 1.7 [1.2;2.4] 143 (30.6%) 18 (36.7%) 1.3 [0.7;2.4]
Hearing impairment (HHIE-S8), n (%) 612 121 (19.8%) 21 (22.1%) 71 (17.7%) 29 (25.0%) 1.4 [0.9;2.1] 89 (19.1%) 11 (21.6%) 1.2 [0.6;2.3]
Urinary incontinence (ICIQ-SF9), n (%) 615 277 (45.0%) 44 (46.3%) 163 (40.5%) 70 (59.3%) 1.8 [1.3; 2.7] 199 (42.4%) 34 (66.7%) 2.5 [1.4;4.5]
Number of morbidities10, mean (SD) 616 0.8 (0.9) 0.9 (1.1) 0.7 (0.9) 0.9 (0.8) 1.1 [1.0;1.3] 0.7 (0.8) 1.0 (1.3) 1.3 [1.1;1.6]
Social risk (Social-familial evaluation scale11), mean (SD) 614 8.8 (2.7) 8.7 (2.8) 8.7 (2.7) 9.4 (2.7) 1.1 [1.0;1.2] 8.7 (2.6) 10.7 (3.2) 1.2 [1.1;1.3]
  1. SD: Standard deviation; HC: Home Care; NH: Nursing Home; CI95%: 95% confidence interval
  2. 1Basic Activities of the Daily Living (BADL) Barthel Index (from 0 to 100 points), below 60 represents moderate/ severe dependence. 2Instrumental Activities of the Daily Living (IADL) Lawton and Brody Index, with dependence cut-off points for women < 8 points (from 0 to 8 points) and men < 5 points (from 0 to 5 points). 3Timed-up-and-go test (TUGT) The score of> 10 s was considered altered. 4Mini Cognitive Examination (MEC), (from 0 to 30 points), cut-off point for cognitive deterioration ≤23. 5Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Yesavage Scale (from 0 to 15 points), cut-off point for probable depression> 5. 6Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) (from 0 to 14 points), cut-off point ≤11 for risk of malnutrition. 7Jaeger Card, point > 20/40 visual acuity deficit. 8Handicap Hearing Impairment in the Elderly Screening Version (HHIE-S) (from 0 to 40 points) (ref). The cut-off point ≥10 was considered an auditory limitation. 9International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) (from 0 to 21 points) with a cut-off point ≥1 for the diagnosis of urinary incontinence. 10Morbidities related to frailty, including: cerebrovascular accident with sequelae, Parkinson’s disease, osteoarticular diseases, severe visual deficit, dementia, acute myocardial infarction or heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recurrent falls or fractures, severe deafness and chronic depression. 11Socio-Family Rating Scale of the Elderly (SFRSE) (from 0 to 25 points) which assesses family, economic situation, housing, social relations, and social support, with a cut-off point ≥10 for social risk. 12Death, previous to both HC/NH outcomes. 13Fine–Gray regression model for the sub-distribution hazard