Comparative 4-year risk and type of hospital admission among homeless and housed emergency department attendees: longitudinal study of hospital records in England 2013-2018

National Overview of Nonprofit Hospitals' Community Benefit Programs to Address Housing

BACKGROUND

Housing is a critical social determinant of health that can be addressed through hospital-supported community benefit programming.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the prevalence of hospital-based programs that address housing-related needs, categorize the specific actions taken to address housing, and determine organizational and community-level factors associated with investing in housing.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined a nationally representative dataset of administrative documents from nonprofit hospitals that addressed social determinants of health in their federally mandated community benefit implementation plans. We conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to examine hospital and community characteristics associated with whether a hospital invested in housing programs. Using an inductive approach, we categorized housing investments into distinct categories.

MEASURES

The main outcome measure was a dichotomous variable representing whether a hospital invested in one or more housing programs in their community.

RESULTS

Twenty percent of hospitals invested in one or more housing programs. Hospitals that addressed housing in their implementation strategies were larger on average, less likely to be in rural communities, and more likely to be serving populations with greater housing needs. Housing programs fell into 1 of 7 categories: community partner collaboration (34%), social determinants of health screening (9%), medical respite centers (4%), community social determinants of health liaison (11%), addressing specific needs of homeless populations (16%), financial assistance (21%), and targeting high-risk populations (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, a small subset of hospitals nationally are addressing housing. Hospitals may need additional policy support, external partnerships, and technical assistance to address housing in their communities.

Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study

Background

There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services.

Objectives

This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated.

Design and setting

The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model.

Participants

People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders.

Results

The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.

Limitations

There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model.

Conclusions

Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The homeless, seizures, and epilepsy: a review

This review aims to estimate the prevalence of seizures and epilepsy among homeless people in current literature as well as understand the main adversities that this group withstands. We conducted a search for "epilep*", "seizur*", and "homeles*" in titles and abstracts of articles in PubMed. Overall, 25 articles met the final inclusion criteria and warranted analyses. This study suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in the homeless population is between 2 and 30%, whereas the prevalence of homelessness in people with epilepsy is between 2 and 4%. Every study included in this review corroborates the increased prevalence of seizures and epilepsy among the homeless, which puts them at risk for worse outcomes related to this condition and numerous associated comorbidities. Further evidence is needed to clarify the distinction of primary and secondary seizures in this group, which shows a high rate of confounding factors for seizures like substance abuse or withdrawal and head injury, and to decrease the burden of epilepsy and homelessness in an already resource-deficient community.

Injury Patterns and Hospital Admission After Trauma Among People Experiencing Homelessness

Importance

Traumatic injury is a major cause of morbidity for people experiencing homelessness (PEH). However, injury patterns and subsequent hospitalization among PEH have not been studied on a national scale.

Objective

To evaluate whether differences in mechanisms of injury exist between PEH and housed trauma patients in North America and whether the lack of housing is associated with increased adjusted odds of hospital admission.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of participants in the 2017 to 2018 American College of Surgeons' Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Hospitals across the US and Canada were queried. Participants were patients aged 18 years or older presenting to an emergency department after injury. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to November 2022.

Exposures

PEH were identified using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program's alternate home residence variable.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hospital admission. Subgroup analysis was used to compared PEH with low-income housed patients (defined by Medicaid enrollment).

Results

A total of 1 738 992 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.6 [21.2] years; 712 120 [41.0%] female; 97 910 [5.9%] Hispanic, 227 638 [13.7%] non-Hispanic Black, and 1 157 950 [69.6%] non-Hispanic White) presented to 790 hospitals with trauma, including 12 266 PEH (0.7%) and 1 726 726 housed patients (99.3%). Compared with housed patients, PEH were younger (mean [SD] age, 45.2 [13.6] years vs 53.7 [21.3] years), more often male (10 343 patients [84.3%] vs 1 016 310 patients [58.9%]), and had higher rates of behavioral comorbidity (2884 patients [23.5%] vs 191 425 patients [11.1%]). PEH sustained different injury patterns, including higher proportions of injuries due to assault (4417 patients [36.0%] vs 165 666 patients [9.6%]), pedestrian-strike (1891 patients [15.4%] vs 55 533 patients [3.2%]), and head injury (8041 patients [65.6%] vs 851 823 patients [49.3%]), compared with housed patients. On multivariable analysis, PEH experienced increased adjusted odds of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.43) compared with housed patients. The association of lacking housing with hospital admission persisted on subgroup comparison of PEH with low-income housed patients (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19).

Conclusions and Relevance

Injured PEH had significantly greater adjusted odds of hospital admission. These findings suggest that tailored programs for PEH are needed to prevent their injury patterns and facilitate safe discharge after injury.

Emergency department outcomes for patients experiencing homelessness in England: retrospective cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) are an important point of access to health care for people experiencing homelessness. Evidence suggests that ED attendances by homeless people are more likely to result in leaving the ED without treatment, or dying in the ED. We investigate which diagnoses and patterns of health care use are associated with these (and other) discharge destinations and re-attendance within 7 days among homeless patients.

METHODS

We used national hospital data to analyze attendances of all 109 254 people experiencing homelessness who presented at any Type 1 ED in England over 2013-18. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of each outcome with primary diagnosis and patterns of healthcare use.

RESULTS

Compared with patients with no past ED use, patients with a high frequency of past ED use were more likely to leave without treatment and re-attend within 7 days. Patients not registered at a general practice were likelier to leave without treatment or die in the ED and had lower odds of unplanned re-attendance. A primary diagnosis of 'social problems' was associated with being discharged without follow-up. Patients with a psychiatric primary diagnosis were disproportionately likely to be referred to another health care professional/provider or an outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to understand why some homeless patients leave the ED without treatment and whether their healthcare needs are being met. Some patients may be attending the ED frequently due to poor access to other services, such as primary care and social welfare.

Remote primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic for people experiencing homelessness: a qualitative study

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption and change to the organisation of primary care, including for people experiencing homelessness who may not have access to a phone. Little is known about whether the recent changes required to deliver services to people experiencing homelessness will help to address or compound inequality in accessing care.

Aim

To explore the experience and impact of organisational and technology changes in response to COVID-19 on access to health care for people experiencing homelessness.

Design and setting

An action-led and participatory research methodology was employed in three case study sites made up of primary care services delivering care for people experiencing homelessness.

Method

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 people experiencing homelessness and 22 clinicians and support workers. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.

Results

The move to remote telephone consultations highlighted the difficulties experienced by participants in accessing health care. These barriers included problems at the practice level associated with remote triage as participants did not always have access to a phone or the means to pay for a phone call. This fostered increased reliance on support workers and clinicians working in the community to provide or facilitate a primary care appointment.

Conclusion

The findings have emphasised the importance of addressing practical and technology barriers as well as supporting communication and choice for mode of consultation. The authors argue that consultations should not be remote ‘by default’ and instead take into consideration both the clinical and social factors underpinning health.