Workforce Models to Screen for and Address Patients' Unmet Social Needs in the Clinic Setting: A Scoping Review

Strategies and indicators to integrate health equity in health service and delivery systems in high-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to describe how health service and delivery systems in high-income countries define and operationalize health equity. A secondary objective was to identify implementation strategies and indicators being used to integrate and measure health equity.

INTRODUCTION

To improve the health of populations, a population health and health equity approach is needed. To date, most work on health equity integration has focused on reducing health inequities within public health, health care delivery, or providers within a health system, but less is known about integration across the health service and delivery system.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review included academic and gray literature sources that described the definitions, frameworks, level of integration, strategies, and indicators that health service and delivery systems in high-income countries have used to describe, integrate, and/or measure health equity. Sources were excluded if they were not available in English (or a translation was not available), were published before 1986, focused on strategies that were not implemented, did not provide health equity indicators, or featured strategies that were implemented outside the health service or delivery systems (eg, community-based strategies).

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility followed by a full-text review to determine inclusion. The information extracted from the included studies consisted of study design and key findings, such as health equity definitions, strategies, frameworks, level of integration, and indicators. Most data were quantitatively tabulated and presented according to 5 secondary review questions. Some findings (eg, definitions and indicators) were summarized using qualitative methods. Most findings were visually presented in charts and diagrams or presented in tabular format.

RESULTS

Following review of 16,297 titles and abstracts and 824 full-text sources, we included 122 sources (108 scholarly and 14 gray literature) in this scoping review. We found that health equity was inconsistently defined and operationalized. Only 17 sources included definitions of health equity, and we found that both indicators and strategies lacked adequate descriptions. The use of health equity frameworks was limited and, where present, there was little consistency or agreement in their use. We found that strategies were often specific to programs, services, or clinics, rather than broadly applied across health service and delivery systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that strategies to advance health equity work are siloed within health service and delivery systems, and are not currently being implemented system-wide (ie, across all health settings). Healthy equity definitions and frameworks are varied in the included sources, and indicators for health equity are variable and inconsistently measured. Health equity integration needs to be prioritized within and across health service and delivery systems. There is also a need for system-wide strategies to promote health equity, alongside robust accountability mechanisms for measuring health equity. This is necessary to ensure that an integrated, whole-system approach can be consistently applied in health service and delivery systems internationally.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

DalSpace dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/80835.

Addressing social needs in oncology care: another research-to-practice gap

Social determinants of health and unmet social needs are directly related to cancer outcomes, from diagnosis to survivorship. If identified, unmet social needs can be addressed in oncology care by changing care plans in collaboration with patients' preferences and accounting for clinical practice guidelines (eg, reducing the frequency of appointments, switching treatment modalities) and connecting patients to resources within healthcare organizations (eg, social work support, patient navigation) and with community organizations (eg, food banks, housing assistance programs). Screening for social needs is the first step to identifying those who need additional support and is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of high-quality cancer care delivery. Despite evidence about the relationship between social needs and cancer outcomes and the abundance of screening tools, the implementation of social needs screening remains a challenge, and little is known regarding the adoption, reach, and sustainability of social needs screening in routine clinical practice. We present data on the adoption and implementation of social needs screening at two large academic cancer centers and discuss three challenges associated with implementing evidence-based social needs screening in clinical practice: (1) identifying an optimal approach for administering social needs screening in oncology care, (2) adequately addressing identified unmet needs with resources and support, and (3) coordinating social needs screening between oncology and primary care.

Understanding social needs screening and demographic data collection in primary care practices serving Maryland Medicare patients

BACKGROUND

Health outcomes are strongly impacted by social determinants of health, including social risk factors and patient demographics, due to structural inequities and discrimination. Primary care is viewed as a potential medical setting to assess and address individual health-related social needs and to collect detailed patient demographics to assess and advance health equity, but limited literature evaluates such processes.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected from n = 507 Maryland Primary Care Program (MDPCP) practices through Care Transformation Requirements (CTR) reporting in 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize practice responses on social needs screening and demographic data collection. A stepwise regression analysis was conducted to determine factors predicting screening of all vs. a targeted subset of beneficiaries for unmet social needs.

RESULTS

Almost all practices (99%) reported conducting some form of social needs screening and demographic data collection. Practices reported variation in what screening tools or demographic questions were employed, frequency of screening, and how information was used. More than 75% of practices reported prioritizing transportation, food insecurity, housing instability, financial resource strain, and social isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the MDPCP program there was widespread implementation of social needs screenings and demographic data collection. However, there was room for additional supports in addressing some challenging social needs and increasing detailed demographics. Further research is needed to understand any adjustments to clinical care in response to identified social needs or application of data for uses such as assessing progress towards health equity and the subsequent impact on clinical care and health outcomes.

Contextual Factors Relevant to Implementing Social Risk Factor Screening and Referrals in Cancer Survivorship: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

Social risk factors such as food insecurity and lack of transportation can negatively affect health outcomes, yet implementation of screening and referral for social risk factors is limited in medical settings, particularly in cancer survivorship.

Methods

We conducted 18 qualitative, semistructured interviews among oncology teams in 3 health systems in Washington, DC, during February and March 2022. We applied the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework to develop a deductive codebook, performed thematic analysis on the interview transcripts, and summarized our results descriptively.

Results

Health systems varied in clinical and support staff roles and capacity. None of the participating clinics had an electronic health record (EHR)-based process for identifying patients who completed their cancer treatment ("survivors") or a standardized cancer survivorship program. Their capacities also differed for documenting social risk factors and referrals in the EHR. Interviewees expressed awareness of the prevalence and effect of social risk factors on cancer survivors, but none employed a systematic process for identifying and addressing social risk factors. Recommendations for increasing screening for social risk factors included designating a person to fulfill this role, improving data tracking tools in the EHR, and creating systems to maintain up-to-date information and contacts for community-based organizations.

Conclusion

The complexity of cancer care workflows and lack of reimbursement results in a limited ability for clinic staff members to screen and make referrals for social risk factors. Creating clinical workflows that are flexible and tailored to staffing realities may contribute to successful implementation of a screening and referral program. Improving ongoing communication with community-based organizations to address needs was deemed important by interviewees.

Leveraging Student Volunteers to Connect Patients with Social Risk to Resources On a Coordinated Care Platform: A Case Study with Two Endocrinology Clinics

Introduction

Although unmet social needs can impact health outcomes, health systems often lack the capacity to fully address these needs. Our study describes a model that organized student volunteers as a community-based organisation (CBO) to serve as a social referral hub on a coordinated social care platform, NCCARE360.

Description

Patients at two endocrinology clinics were systematically screened for social needs. Patients who screened positive and agreed to receive help were referred via NCCARE360 to student 'Help Desk' volunteers, who organised as a CBO. Trained student volunteers called patients to place referrals to resources and document them on the platform. The platform includes documentation at several levels, acting as a shared information source between healthcare providers, volunteer student patient navigators, and community resources. Navigators followed up with patients to problem-solve barriers and track referral outcomes on the platform, visible to all parties working with the patient.

Discussion

Of the 44 patients who screened positive for social needs and were given referrals by Help Desk, 41 (93%) were reached for follow-up. Thirty-six patients (82%) connected to at least one resource. These results speak to the feasibility and utility of organising undergraduate student volunteers into a social referral hub to connect patients to resources on a coordinated care platform.

Conclusion

Organising students as a CBO on a centralized social care platform can help bridge a critical gap between healthcare and social services, addressing health system capacity and ultimately improving patients' connections with resources.

Awareness, Adjustment, Assistance, Alignment, and Advocacy: Operationalizing Social Determinants of Health Topics in Undergraduate Medical Education Curricula

Social and economic factors, such as those related to food, housing, and transportation, are major drivers of health and health inequities. Multiple national professional organizations have articulated roles for physicians in identifying and addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) and the need to include SDOH in all stages of physician education. Despite encouragement from these professional organizations, medical schools still do not routinely offer SDOH education alongside basic and clinical sciences curricula. A recent national expert consensus process identified priority SDOH knowledge domains and professional skills for medical students but lacked an organizing schema and specific pedagogical examples to help translate prioritized skills into routine pedagogical practice. One such schema is the 5As framework developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which elaborates on 5 strategies to strengthen social care: awareness, adjustment, assistance, alignment, and advocacy. In this article, the authors highlight and provide examples of how mapping SDOH skills to the 5As framework can help educators meaningfully operationalize SDOH topics into specific curricular activities during the preclinical and clinical stages of undergraduate medical education. As a foundational first step in this direction, medical schools should conduct an internal curricular review of social care content (ideally mapped to the 5As framework) and identify opportunities to integrate these topics into existing courses when relevant (e.g., in social medicine, population health, and health systems science courses). Given that health and social care integration is highly context dependent, each medical school will likely need to tailor curricular changes based on their own institutional needs, mission, patient populations, and ties to the community. To increase interinstitutional alignment, medical schools might consider using or adapting peer-reviewed materials and assessments curated and centralized by the National Collaborative for Education to Address the Social Determinants of Health.

Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the health impacts of social conditions has led US healthcare systems to consider identifying and addressing social adversity-e.g. food, housing, and transportation insecurity-in care delivery settings. Social screening is one strategy being used to gather patient information about social circumstances at the point of care. While several recent studies describe the rapid proliferation of social screening activities, little work has explored either why or how to implement social screening in clinical settings. Our study objectives were to assess diverse healthcare stakeholder perspectives on both the rationale for social screening and evidence needed to inform practice and policy-relevant implementation decisions.

METHODS

We convened five focus groups with US experts representing different stakeholder groups: patient advocates, community-based organizations, healthcare professionals, payers, and policymakers. In total, 39 experts participated in approximately 90-minute long focus groups conducted between January-March 2021. A inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze discussions.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged from focus groups, each reflecting the tension between the national enthusiasm for screening and existing evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of screening in clinical settings: (1) ambiguity about the rationale for social screening; (2) concerns about the relavence of screening tools and approaches, particularly for historically marginalized populations; (3) lack of clarity around the resources needed for implementation and scaling.

CONCLUSION

While participants across groups described potential benefits of social screening, they also highlighted knowledge gaps that interfered with realizing these benefits. Efforts to minimize and ideally resolve these knowledge gaps will advance future social screening practice and policy.

Intervention components of link worker social prescribing programmes: A scoping review

In the United Kingdom (UK), link worker social prescribing has emerged as an option to improve long-term condition management and address primary care patients' non-medical needs by linking patients with community-based activities and support. Social prescribing is a complex, heterogenous intervention, and there is currently no taxonomy of components to guide its implementation and evaluation. This study aimed to identify and categorise the components of link worker social prescribing schemes in the United Kingdom. A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Six databases were used to identify papers that met inclusion criteria. Eligible articles were original research studies in the United Kingdom describing interventions that included (1) initial referral of adults with chronic physical health conditions and/or unmet social needs from primary care to a link worker or equivalent role, (2) consultation with a link worker or equivalent role and (3) referral to a community-based or government service. Of the 1078 articles identified, 32 met study eligibility criteria, representing 22 social prescribing schemes. We drew from the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) to identify, organise and report intervention components. We found wide variations in geography, target populations and intervention components such as activities and procedures conducted by primary care staff and link workers, organisational and staffing configurations and use of tools and financing approaches to facilitate adoption. Intervention components are summarised into a taxonomy to guide future research, policy and practice efforts in addition to supporting standardised intervention reporting.

Training student volunteers as community resource navigators to address patients' social needs: A curriculum toolkit

Introduction

Few resources are available to train students to provide patients assistance for obtaining needed community-based services. This toolkit outlines a curriculum to train student volunteers to become "community resource navigators" to serve patients via telephone at partner health sites.

Methods

University students co-designed the Help Desk navigator program and training for volunteer navigators as part of an academic-community partnership with a local Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). The multi-modal curricula consisted of five components: didactic instruction on social determinants of health and program logistics, mock patient calls and documentation, observation of experienced navigator interaction with patients, supervised calls with real patients, and homework assignments. In 2020, training materials were adapted for virtual delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trainees completed a survey after completion to provide qualitative feedback on the training and preparedness.

Results

The training was offered for the first cohort of 11 student volunteer navigators in 2019, revised and then offered for 13 undergraduate and nursing students over 6 weeks in 2020. In the training evaluation, trainees described the new knowledge and skills gained from the training, the long-term benefits toward their educational and professional career goals, and helpful interactive delivery of the training. Trainees also highlighted areas for improvement, including more time learning about community resources and practicing challenging patient conversations.

Conclusions

Our peer-to-peer, multi-modal training prepares student volunteers to become community resource navigators. Student, eager for meaningful clinical experiences, are an untapped resource that can help patients with their social needs.

Global developments in social prescribing

Social prescribing is an approach that aims to improve health and well-being. It connects individuals to non-clinical services and supports that address social needs, such as those related to loneliness, housing instability and mental health. At the person level, social prescribing can give individuals the knowledge, skills, motivation and confidence to manage their own health and well-being. At the society level, it can facilitate greater collaboration across health, social, and community sectors to promote integrated care and move beyond the traditional biomedical model of health. While the term social prescribing was first popularised in the UK, this practice has become more prevalent and widely publicised internationally over the last decade. This paper aims to illuminate the ways social prescribing has been conceptualised and implemented across 17 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America. We draw from the 'Beyond the Building Blocks' framework to describe the essential inputs for adopting social prescribing into policy and practice, related to service delivery; social determinants and household production of health; workforce; leadership and governance; financing, community organisations and societal partnerships; health technology; and information, learning and accountability. Cross-cutting lessons can inform country and regional efforts to tailor social prescribing models to best support local needs.

Social Needs Resource Connections: A Systematic Review of Barriers, Facilitators, and Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare organizations increasingly are screening patients for social needs (e.g., food, housing) and referring them to community resources. This systematic mixed studies review assesses how studies evaluate social needs resource connections and identifies patient- and caregiver-reported factors that may inhibit or facilitate resource connections.

METHODS

Investigators searched PubMed and CINAHL for articles published from October 2015 to December 2020 and used dual review to determine inclusion based on a priori selection criteria. Data related to study design, setting, population of interest, intervention, and outcomes were abstracted. Articles' quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data analysis was conducted in 2021.

RESULTS

The search identified 34 articles from 32 studies. The authors created a taxonomy of quantitative resource connection measures with 4 categories: whether participants made contact with resources, received resources, had their social needs addressed, or rated some aspect of their experience with resources. Barriers to resource connections were inadequacy, irrelevancy, or restrictiveness; inaccessibility; fears surrounding stigma or discrimination; and factors related to staff training and resource information sharing. Facilitators were referrals' relevancy, the degree of support and simplicity embedded within the interventions, and interventions being comprehensive and inclusive.

DISCUSSION

This synthesis of barriers and facilitators indicates areas where healthcare organizations may have agency to improve the efficacy of social needs screening and referral interventions. The authors also recommend that resource connection measures be explicitly defined and focus on whether participants received new resources and whether their social needs were addressed.

Social care practices and perspectives among U.S. pediatric emergency medicine fellowship programs

BACKGROUND

The emergence of social emergency medicine-the incorporation of social context into the structure and practice of emergency care-has brought forth greater embracement of the social determinants of health by medical professionals, yet workforce practices and training have remained elusive. Academic literature particularly in the field of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship training is lacking relative to general pediatrics and adult emergency medicine.

METHODS

The primary objective of this study was to assess the social care knowledge, perspectives, and training of PEM program directors (PDs) and fellows across a national cross-sectional sample. A secondary aim was to uncover key actionable areas for the development of social care curricula in PEM training programs. A social care practices assessment tool was developed via snowball sampling interviews among clinician researcher experts and disseminated to PEM PDs and fellows nationally in accredited academic PEM training institutions.

RESULTS

A total of 153 participants-44 PDs (49% response rate) and 109 fellows (28%)-completed the assessment tool. Responses among PDs and fellows were highly concordant. Only 12% reported regular use of a standardized social needs screening tool. The majority felt unprepared to assist families with social needs and less than half felt comfortable talking to families about social need. At the same time, social care was highly valued by 73% of participants. All participants felt that providing social care training during PEM fellowship would be beneficial. PDs and fellows identified five priority areas for PEM curricular development.

CONCLUSIONS

PEM PDs and fellows have an overall favorable perception of social care yet report significant deficits in current practice organization and training. This study is part of a larger national collaborative advocacy project to organize and advance social care delivery across academic PEM training institutions through evidence-based approaches, best practices, and expert consensus.

Financing Approaches to Social Prescribing Programs in England and the United States

Policy Points The number of social prescribing practices, which aim to link patients with nonmedical services and supports to address patients' social needs, is increasing in both England and the United States. Traditional health care financing mechanisms were not designed to support social prescribing practices, and flexible payment approaches may not support their widespread adoption. Policymakers in both countries are shifting toward developing explicit financing streams for social prescribing programs. Consequently, we need an evaluation of them to assess their success in supporting both the acceptance of these programs and their impacts. Investment in community-based organizations and wider public services will likely be crucial to both the long-term effectiveness and the sustainability of social prescribing.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model: Findings from a between-site qualitative assessment of implementation strategies

Introduction

A multitude of HRSN interventions are undergoing testing in the U.S., with the CMS Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model as the largest. HRSN interventions typically include screening for social needs, referral to community resources, and patient navigation to ensure needs are met. There is currently a paucity of evidence on implementation of HRSN interventions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a determinant framework widely used to plan and assess implementation. To the authors knowledge, there are no published studies assessing CFIR constructs for HRSN intervention implementation in the U.S. In the Assessment step of the Strengthening Peer AHC Navigation (SPAN) model, a between-site qualitative assessment methodology was used to examine implementation within and between AHC bridge organizations (BOs) within six ERIC implementation strategies identified by the authors based on AHC Model requirements.

Objective

Our aim was to identify and present between-site barriers and facilitators to AHC Model implementation strategies.

Design

A multi-site qualitative analysis methodology was used. CFIR determinants were linked to six Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies: staff training, identify and prepare champions, facilitation, community resource engagement (alignment through advisory boards and working groups), data systems, and quality monitoring and assurance. Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis in NVivo 12 (QSR International).

Setting

Five health-related bridge organizations participating in the AHC Model.

Results

Fifty-eight interviews were completed with 34 staff and 24 patients or patient proxies. Facilitators were identified across five of the six ERIC strategies. Barriers were identified across all six. While organizations found the AHC Model compatible and facilitators to implementation included previous experience, meeting patient needs and resources, and leadership engagement and support, a number of barriers presented challenges to implementation. Issues with adequate staff training, staff skills to resolve HRSN, including patient communication and boundary spanning, setting staff goals, beneficiary caseloads and measurement of progress, data infrastructure (including EHR), available resources to implement and differences in perceptions between clinical delivery site (CDS), and CSP of how to measure and resolve HRSN.

Conclusions and relevance

The conduct of a pre-implementation readiness assessment benefited from identifying CFIR determinants linked to various ERIC implementation strategies.

Integrated Health and Social Care in the United States: A Decade of Policy Progress

Introduction:

Over the last decade in the United States (US), the burden of chronic disease, health care costs, and fragmented care delivery have increased at alarming rates. To address these challenges, policymakers have prioritized new payment and delivery models to incentivize better integrated health and social services.

Policy practice:

This paper outlines three major national and state policy initiatives to improve integrated health and social care over the last ten years in the US, with a focus on the Medicaid public insurance program for Americans with low incomes. Activities supported by these initiatives include screening patients for social risks in primary care clinics; building new cross-sector collaborations; financing social care with healthcare dollars; and sharing data across health, social and community services. Stakeholders from the private sector, including health systems and insurers, have partnered to advance and scale these initiatives. This paper describes the implementation and effectiveness of such efforts, and lessons learned from translating policy to practice.

Discussion and Conclusion:

National policies have catalyzed initiatives to test new integrated health and social care models, with the ultimate goal of improving population health and decreasing costs. Preliminary findings demonstrated the need for validated measures of social risk, engagement across levels of organizational leadership and frontline staff, and greater flexibility from national policymakers in order to align incentives across sectors.

Factors Associated with Patients' Connection to Referred Social Needs Resources at a Federally Qualified Health Center

Introduction:

In an effort to improve health outcomes and promote health equity, healthcare systems have increasingly begun to screen patients for unmet social needs and refer them to relevant social services and community-based organizations. This study aimed to identify factors associated with the successful connection (ie, services started) to social needs resources, as well as factors associated with an attempt to connect as a secondary, intermediate outcome.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study included patients who had been screened, referred, and subsequently reached for follow-up navigation from March 2019 to December 2020, as part of a social needs intervention at a federally qualified health center (FQHC). Measures included demographic and social needs covariates collected during screening, as well as resource-related covariates that characterized the referred resources, including service domain (area of need addressed), service site (integration relative to the FQHC), and access modality (means of accessing services).

Results:

Of the 501 patients in the analytic sample, 32.7% had started services with 1 or more of their referred resources within 4 weeks of the initial referral, and 63.3% had at least attempted to contact 1 referred resource, whether or not they were able to start services. Receiving a referral to resources that patients could access via phone call or drop-in visit, as opposed to resources that required additional appointments or applications prior to accessing services, was associated with increased odds (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05, 3.61) of connection success, after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, number of social needs, and resource-related characteristics. This study did not find statistically significant associations between connection attempt and any variable included in adjusted analyses.

Conclusion:

These findings suggest that referral pathways may influence the success of patients’ connection to social needs resources, highlighting opportunities for more accessible solutions to addressing patients’ unmet social needs.