Elevated Hospitalization Risk of Assisted Living Residents With Dementia in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assisted living (AL) is an increasingly used residential option for older adults with dementia; however, lower staffing rates and service availability raise concerns that such residents may be at increased risk for adverse outcomes. Our objectives were to determine the incidence of hospitalization over 1 year for dementia residents of designated AL (DAL) facilities, compared with long-term care (LTC) facilities, and identify resident- and facility-level predictors of hospitalization among DAL residents. METHODS: Participants were 609 DAL (mean age 85.7 ± 6.6 years) and 691 LTC (86.4 ± 6.9 years) residents with dementia enrolled in the Alberta Continuing Care Epidemiological Studies. Research nurses completed a standardized comprehensive assessment of residents and interviewed family caregivers at baseline (2006-2008) and 1 year later. Standardized administrator interviews provided facility level data. Hospitalization was determined via linkage with the provincial Inpatient Discharge Abstract Database. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify predictors of hospitalization. RESULTS: The cumulative annual incidence of hospitalization was 38.6% (34.5%-42.7%) for DAL and 10.3% (8.0%-12.6%) for LTC residents with dementia. A significantly increased risk for hospitalization was observed for DAL residents aged 90+ years, with poor social relationships, less severe cognitive impairment, greater health instability, fatigue, high medication use (11+ medications), and 2+ hospitalizations in the preceding year. Residents from DAL facilities with a smaller number of spaces, no chain affiliation, and from specific health regions showed a higher risk of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: DAL residents with dementia had a hospitalization rate almost 4-fold higher than LTC residents with dementia. Our findings raise questions about the ability of some AL facilities to adequately address the needs of cognitively impaired residents and highlight potential clinical, social, and policy areas for targeted interventions to reduce hospitalization risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".