Predicting short- to medium-term care home admission risk in older adults: a systematic review of externally validated models

INTRODUCTION

Predicting risk of care home admission could identify older adults for early intervention to support independent living but require external validation in a different dataset before clinical use. We systematically reviewed external validations of care home admission risk prediction models in older adults.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library until 14 August 2023 for external validations of prediction models for care home admission risk in adults aged ≥65 years with up to 3 years of follow-up. We extracted and narratively synthesised data on study design, model characteristics, and model discrimination and calibration (accuracy of predictions). We assessed risk of bias and applicability using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

Five studies reporting validations of nine unique models were included. Model applicability was fair but risk of bias was mostly high due to not reporting model calibration. Morbidities were used as predictors in four models, most commonly neurological or psychiatric diseases. Physical function was also included in four models. For 1-year prediction, three of the six models had acceptable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)/c statistic 0.70-0.79) and the remaining three had poor discrimination (AUC < 0.70). No model accounted for competing mortality risk. The only study examining model calibration (but ignoring competing mortality) concluded that it was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of models was incomplete. Model discrimination was at best acceptable, and calibration was rarely examined (and ignored competing mortality risk when examined). There is a need to derive better models that account for competing mortality risk and report calibration as well as discrimination.

Impact of individual, household, and area characteristics on health and social care outcomes for people with multimorbidity: Protocol for a multilevel analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is one of the greatest challenges facing health and social care systems globally. It is associated with high rates of health service use, adverse healthcare events, and premature death. Despite its importance, little is known about the effects of contextual determinants such as household and area characteristics on health and care outcomes for people with multimorbidity. This study protocol presents a plan for the examination of associations between individual, household, and area characteristics with important health and social care outcomes.

METHODS

The study will use a cross-section of data from the SAIL Databank on 01 January 2019 and include all people alive and registered with a Welsh GP. The cohort will be stratified according to the presence or absence of multimorbidity, defined as two or more long-term conditions. Multilevel models will be used to examine covariates measured for individuals, households, and areas to account for social processes operating at different levels. The intra-class correlation coefficient will be calculated to determine the strength of association at each level of the hierarchy. Model outcomes will be any emergency department attendance, emergency hospital or care home admission, or mortality, within the study follow-up period.

DISCUSSION

Household and area characteristics might act as protective or risk factors for health and care outcomes for people with multimorbidity, in which case results of the analyses can be used to guide clinical and policy responses for effective targeting of limited resources.

Effect of competing mortality risks on predictive performance of the QFracture risk prediction tool for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture: external validation cohort study in a UK primary care population

Objective

To externally evaluate the QFracture risk prediction tool for predicting the risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture.

Design

External validation cohort study.

Setting

UK primary care population. Linked general practice (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold), mortality registration (Office of National Statistics), and hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) data, from 1 January 2004 to 31 March 2016.

Participants

2 747 409 women and 2 684 730 men, aged 30-99 years, with up-to-standard linked data that had passed CPRD checks for at least one year.

Main outcome measures

Two outcomes were modelled based on the QFracture: major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. Major osteoporotic fracture was defined as any hip, distal forearm, proximal humerus, or vertebral crush fracture, from general practice, hospital discharge, and mortality data. The QFracture 10 year predicted risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture was calculated, and performance evaluated versus observed 10 year risk of fracture in the whole population, and in subgroups based on age and comorbidity. QFracture calibration was examined accounting for, and not accounting for, competing risk of mortality from causes other than the major osteoporotic fracture.

Results

2 747 409 women with 95 598 major osteoporotic fractures and 36 400 hip fractures, and 2 684 730 men with 34 321 major osteoporotic fractures and 13 379 hip fractures were included in the analysis. The incidence of all fractures was higher than in the QFracture internal derivation. Competing risk of mortality was more common than fracture from middle age onwards. QFracture discrimination in the whole population was excellent or good for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture (Harrell's C statistic in women 0.813 and 0.918, and 0.738 and 0.888 in men, respectively), but was poor to moderate in age subgroups (eg, Harrell's C statistic in women and men aged 85-99 years was 0.576 and 0.624 for major osteoporotic fractures, and 0.601 and 0.637 for hip fractures, respectively). Without accounting for competing risks, QFracture systematically under-predicted the risk of fracture in all models, and more so for major osteoporotic fracture than for hip fracture, and more so in older people. Accounting for competing risks, QFracture still under-predicted the risk of fracture in the whole population, but over-prediction was considerable in older age groups and in people with high comorbidities at high risk of fracture.

Conclusions

The QFracture risk prediction tool systematically under-predicted the risk of fracture (because of incomplete determination of fracture rates) and over-predicted the risk in older people and in those with more comorbidities (because of competing mortality). The use of QFracture in its current form needs to be reviewed, particularly in people at high risk of death from other causes.