Search

Background: Physical frailty accelerates the timing of both subsequent disability and death; however, evidence regarding the impact of frailty on the period from disability onset to death and sex differences of this impact is lacking. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship among physical frailty, disability, death, and sex differences. Methods: This Japanese cohort study included 10,524 community‐dwelling people aged ≥65 years. Physical frailty was operationalized by key phenotypes as per Fried's criteria (slowness, weakness, exhaustion, weight loss, and low activity) at baseline. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disability onset and post‐disability survival according to the frailty status. Results: During a 5‐year follow‐up, the risk of disability onset for pre‐frailty (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.51–2.00) and frailty (HR: 3.27, 95% CI: 2.77–3.87) were significantly higher than that for robust people. Furthermore, among participants who developed disabilities within 5 years (n = 1481), the risk of post‐disability death for pre‐frailty was not different from that for robust (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.99–2.24), but frailty showed a higher risk of post‐disability death than did robust people. (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.13–2.72). In the sex‐stratified analysis, although the female group showed no association between frailty status and post‐disability death (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63–2.33 in pre‐frailty; HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.60–2.57 in frailty), the male group showed higher risk of post‐disability death in both pre‐frailty (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.03–2.96) and frailty (HR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.32–4.09). Conclusions: Physical frailty shortens the period from disability onset to death. Additionally, the impact of frailty on post‐disability death is greater for males than for females. Our findings suggest that physical frailty is an important clinical indicator distinct from disability and that interventions to prevent and address frailty in men need further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While assisted living (AL) and nursing home (NHs) residents in share vulnerabilities, AL provides fewer staffing resources and services. Research has largely neglected AL, especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Our study compared trends of practice‐sensitive, risk‐adjusted quality indicators between AL and NHs, and changes in these trends after the start of the pandemic. Methods: This repeated cross‐sectional study used population‐based resident data in Alberta, Canada. Using Resident Assessment Instrument data (01/2017–12/2021), we created quarterly cohorts, using each resident's latest assessment in each quarter. We applied validated inclusion/exclusion criteria and risk‐adjustments to create nine quality indicators and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs): potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use, pain, depressive symptoms, total dependency in late‐loss activities of daily living, physical restraint use, pressure ulcers, delirium, weight loss, urinary tract infections. Run charts compared quality indicators between AL and NHs over time and segmented regressions assessed whether these trends changed after the start of the pandemic. Results: Quarterly samples included 2015–2710 AL residents and 12,881–13,807 NH residents. Antipsychotic use (21%–26%), pain (20%–24%), and depressive symptoms (17%–25%) were most common in AL. In NHs, they were physical dependency (33%–36%), depressive symptoms (26%–32%), and antipsychotic use (17%–22%). Antipsychotic use and pain were consistently higher in AL. Depressive symptoms, physical dependency, physical restraint use, delirium, weight loss were consistently lower in AL. The most notable segmented regression findings were an increase in antipsychotic use during the pandemic in both settings (AL: change in slope = 0.6% [95% CI: 0.1%–1.0%], p = 0.0140; NHs: change in slope = 0.4% [95% CI: 0.3%–0.5%], p < 0.0001), and an increase in physical dependency in AL only (change in slope = 0.5% [95% CI: 0.1%–0.8%], p = 0.0222). Conclusions: QIs differed significantly between AL and NHs before and during the pandemic. Any changes implemented to address deficiencies in either setting need to account for these differences and require monitoring to assess their impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]