Worldwide countries face the challenge of providing adequate, affordable and patient-centered health and social care to their ageing populations [1]. Most people wish to age healthily, live an independent and socially integrated life in their communities and stay at home, if possible till the end of their life [2, 3]. However, the majority of the elderly are suffering from one or multiple chronic health conditions (CHC) e. g. diabetes, cardiovascular diseases or depression [4] and an increasing number of older people with functional limitations need health care and support with the activities of daily living [5, 6]. Coping successfully with CHC in the sense of stabilising the course of the disease, preventing exacerbation and avoidable hospitalisations requires a high degree of self-management, personal and social resources as well as access to adequate health care [7, 8].
If a hospitalisation becomes inevitable in the course of a chronic disease, discharge from acute hospital care in elderly individuals is often associated with temporary or persistent frailty, functional limitations and the need for help with daily activities. Thus, this represents a particularly vulnerable phase of transient dependency on social support and health care. So, after an acute hospital stay a critical question for the elderly patient, his or her family and for the hospital discharge team is whether to discharge to the patients' home or to a nursing home [2, 9]. Being transferred directly from acute hospital into long-term care is a common pathway, but is seen critical [10]. Nursing home admission, often termed institutionalisation, is a significant life event for elderly persons and often associated with negative outcomes such as restricted quality of life and loss of social network as well as a high burden for public and private finances [11]. It may often be unavoidable, especially in the case of cognitive impairment, but should not take place unnecessarily or prematurely.
The risk of suffering from one or multiple CHC follows a social pattern. The lower the socioeconomic status (SES) of an individual, the higher the risk of chronic diseases and multimorbidity such as mental health disorders, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases or cardiovascular diseases [12, 13]. Several studies have found that the social context of a person’s life determines not only the risk of exposure and the degree of susceptibility but also the course and outcome of a disease depending on the capability to cope with the disease [7]. However self-management of CHC is too often discussed from a purely individualistic perspective, ignoring the social and cultural context in which this process happens [14, 15]. "Central to these critiques is a hyper-individualistic conception of patients as autonomous self-regulating subjects making self-serving decisions" [14].
The Commission on Social Determinants on Health (CSDH) set up by the WHO published a conceptual framework to explain the complexity of the different impact levels and pathways between social aspects and health [16]. In this framework they distinguish between (1) structural determinants on the macro-level (socioeconomic and political context) which generate and maintain social hierarchies and defining socioeconomic positions of groups and individuals; and (2) intermediary determinants on the meso-level with categories such as material circumstances, behavioural and biological factors, psychosocial factors as well as the health care system. The structural determinants include the characteristic of the welfare state, which is postulated to have a significant impact on social inequality in health by framing the type of health care system in a society and in mediating the effects of the social determinants on health. Beckfield et al. [17] propose an institutional theory of welfare states on the distribution of health in a population. They highlight the impact of "meso-level rule-like arrangements" (e.g. neighbourhood resources, the local health care system) and of macro-level institutions (e.g. access to social and health care systems) "to create winners and losers in social life" and in this way determine social inequalities in health (p. 231).
Literature review: social predictors of nursing home admission after hospital discharge
Although the question of social predictors of non-home discharge or new institutionalisations after a hospital discharge is of great individual and societal importance, surprisingly little research exists to date on this topic. Several studies analyse the decision-making process from a hospital's perspective showing the relevance of hospital-level factors like quality of the discharge management. But these studies do not focus on the social situation of the patients [e.g. 18–20]. There exists a broad range of studies as well as meta-analyses on the question of social predictors of nursing home admissions or institutionalisations in the general population [9, 11, 21–24]. In a meta-analysis including 77 studies analysing the predictors of nursing home admission in the general population of the USA, Gaugler et al. [11] found strong evidence, that the presence of a spouse reduces and being white increases the likelihood of living in a nursing home, independent of health status and demographic variables; for living alone they found no clear evidence. A second meta-analysis including 36 studies from different developed countries found strong evidence for a higher likelihood of living in a nursing home among persons with limited financial resources. They found moderate evidence for an association with a poor social network and inconclusive evidence for such an association with living alone and low education [9]. However, there are few studies analysing the social predictors of new institutionalisation after hospital discharge. Gilbert et al. [25] studied the likelihood of admission to a nursing home after fall-related hospitalisations in England. They included age, gender, comorbidity level (Charlson Comorbity Index) and area deprivation (rurality, ethnicity and deprivation index) in their model and found a higher risk associated with highest age, severe comorbidity and living in a non-deprived all-white area. The last result may be surprising, but it is in line with a broad consensus in the international literature, that migration background is negatively associated with the use of nursing homes [23]. Agosti et al. [26] analysed the association between the likelihood of home or non-home discharge in N=1,849 patients in Italy and the question of living alone or with others. They controlled for age, gender, a range of health indicators including cognitive impairment and functional limitation and found living alone to be an important predictor of non-home discharge. In another study in Italy, Marengoni et al. [27] studied the allocation of the place of residence after the discharge of 830 patients admitted to an acute geriatric ward in association with living alone, having a caregiver, multimorbidity, physical functioning, and cognitive status. They only found functional status to be a significant predictor of discharge to nursing homes but given the small N of cases admitted to nursing homes (N=23), this result may not be seen as conclusive. Harrison et al. [2] described the characteristics of patients entering a nursing home after hospitalisation in a retrospective cohort study in one hospital in Scotland. They found that people discharged to nursing homes were predominantly female, widowed, older and living alone. However these were only descriptive results which were not adjusted for covariates such as health status, etc.
For many countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, UK, Germany) substantial regional variations in permanent placements in nursing homes are reported and seen as an indicator for local disparity in access and effectiveness of health and social care for elderly persons to promote and maintain their independence [28–32].
In conclusion, our review identified few studies taking a comprehensive approach to analysing the question of social inequality in nursing home admission after hospital discharge and few studies using representative samples. Two meta-analyses investigating the likelihood of institutionalisation in the whole population found inconclusive evidence for social determinants. The few studies focusing on the phase after a hospital discharge are often restricted to only one aspect of the social situation or only one health condition (e.g., fall-related health problems). There is also the problem of limited explanatory power due to methodological limitations. To the best of our knowledge and in accordance with Harrison et al. [2] we conclude that the topic of social inequalities in admission to nursing homes after acute hospitalisation in elderly people are poorly researched to date.
Situation in Switzerland
Based on cluster analyses of the data of 29 OECD countries to classify the different healthcare systems, Reibling et al. [33] conclude that the healthcare system in Switzerland is unique in Europe and forms a cluster with the USA only, portrayed as systems with high supply and low public but high private (out-of-pocket) expenditures. All residents in Switzerland have a compulsory basic health insurance, but this insurance class does not cover all services needed. For example dental care or household assistance after a hospital discharge are not covered. These services are covered by private and semi-private supplementary insurance only. In addition, there is a high proportion of cost-sharing. It is therefore not surprising that an outstanding high proportion of people in Switzerland experience financial barriers to health care: 22% of adults (31% of low-income adults, defined as member of households with an income less than half of the median household income) reported cost-related access problems to medical care in the preceding 12 months. This rate is at least twice as high as in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden or the UK [34]. In 2012, a new hospital financing system based on diagnosis-related groups (SwissDRG) was introduced in Switzerland. In order to mitigate the consequences of shortened hospital stays, the instrument of acute and transitional care (ATC) was redefined. The aim of the ATC is that patients who temporarily need care for their recovery can regain their independence after a hospital stay [35]. However, this transient care has rarely been used until now because the statutory regulation is undermined by two flaws: the non-reimbursement of accommodation costs (hotel services) and the time limit of two weeks [36]. Only 0.3% of all beds in nursing homes in Switzerland were reported to be provided for ATC after a hospital discharge [35] and only a total of 1.9% of all nursing home stays in Switzerland were short time stays including ATC [37].
A total of 154'634 individuals 65 years old and older were living in a nursing home in Switzerland in 2018, corresponding to a rate of 70.5 women and 33.4 men per per 1,000 individuals in this age group. This proportion rises markedly with increasing age, with 1.5% of the population between 65 and 79 years old and 15% of the population above 79 years [38]. In Switzerland, the federal legislation determines the basic framework of social and health insurance, but the 26 cantons are responsible for the conceptualisation and implementation of old age policy and inpatient acute and long-term care. This leads to considerable regional disparities regarding access to specific health care for elderly people, including palliative care [39–41]. There are 60.9 nursing home places per 1,000 individuals 65 years old and older in Switzerland, with substantial cantonal disparities, ranging from 46 places (Canton Wallis) to 101 places (Canton Appenzell Ausserrhoden) per 1,000 individuals in this age group (see also Figure 1a).
These disparities between cantonal health care infrastructure are postulated to be influenced by socio-cultural and political differences associated with the language regions of Switzerland. Various studies show that health related behaviour [42], use of outpatient health care [43] and per capita health expenditures [41, 44] vary substantially between the different cultural regions in Switzerland. Political studies analysing the health care system in Switzerland postulate that the differences between the language regions are not only related to demand and supply-related factors, but also to political determinants [45]. The German-speaking population seems to prefer a liberal, subsidiary state that incorporates self-responsibility, the French-speaking part of the country to follow rather a state-centred model of welfare, where the responsibility is placed on the state as far as the provision of public services such as health care is concerned [46]. Studies focusing the health care infrastructure for elderly people in Switzerland conclude that in the German-speaking part (mainly northeastern region of Switzerland) the old age policy focuses more strongly on the stationary health care infrastructure combined with a lack of outpatient services and fewer community-based support for elderly people. In the French-speaking cantons (mainly western region of Switzerland) the focus lies more strongly on outpatient health infrastructure (e.g. SPITEX, see figure 1b), intermediate structures like assisted living and coordination with social care [47, 48]. These disparity in health care infrastructure for the elderly is reflected in Figures 1a and 1b showing the density of nursing home places and the use of ambulant home care (SPITEX) in the cantons of Switzerland.