Improving Understanding of Screening Questions for Social Risk and Social Need Among Emergency Department Patients

Mapping Oral health and Local Area Resources (MOLAR): protocol for a randomised controlled trial connecting emergency department patients with social and dental resources

INTRODUCTION

There are substantial inequities in oral health access and outcomes in the USA, including by income and racial and ethnic identity. People with adverse social determinants of health (aSDoH), such as housing or food insecurity, are also more likely to have unmet dental needs. Many patients with dental problems present to the emergency department (ED), where minimal dental care or referral is usually available. Nonetheless, the ED represents an important point of contact to facilitate screening and referral for unmet oral health needs and aSDoH, particularly for patients who may not otherwise have access to care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mapping Oral health and Local Area Resources is a randomised controlled trial enrolling 2049 adult and paediatric ED patients with unmet oral health needs into one of three trial arms: (a) a standard handout of nearby dental and aSDoH resources; (b) a geographically matched listing of aSDoH resources and a search link for identification of geographically matched dental resources; or (c) geographically matched resources along with personalised care navigation. Follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months will evaluate oral health-related quality of life, linkage to resources and dental treatment, ED visits for dental problems and the association between linkage and neighbourhood resource density.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All sites share a single human subjects review board protocol which has been fully approved by the Mass General Brigham Human Subjects Review Board. Informed consent will be obtained from all adults and adult caregivers, and assent will be obtained from age-appropriate child participants. Results will demonstrate the impact of addressing aSDoH on oral health access and the efficacy of various forms of resource navigation compared with enhanced standard care. Our findings will facilitate sustainable, scalable interventions to identify and address aSDoH in the ED to improve oral health and reduce oral health inequities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05688982.

Developing a brief assessment of social risks for the Veterans Health Administration Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a 6- or 12-month look-back period affected rates of reported social risks in a social risk survey for use in the Veterans Health Administration and to assess associations of social risks with overall health and mental health.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of respondents randomized to 6- or 12-month look-back period.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Online survey with a convenience sample of Veterans in June and July 2021.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Veteran volunteers were recruited by email to complete a survey assessing social risks, including financial strain, adult caregiving, childcare, food insecurity, housing, transportation, internet access, loneliness/isolation, stress, discrimination, and legal issues. Outcomes included self-reported overall health and mental health. Chi-squared tests compared the prevalence of reported social risks between 6- and 12-month look-back periods. Spearman correlations assessed associations among social risks. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations between social risks and fair/poor overall and mental health.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of 3418 Veterans contacted, 1063 (31.10%) responded (87.11% male; 85.61% non-Hispanic White; median age = 70, interquartile range [IQR] = 61-74). Prevalence of most reported social risks did not significantly differ by look-back period. Most social risks were weakly intercorrelated (median |r| = 0.24, IQR = 0.16-0.31). Except for legal issues, all social risks were associated with higher odds of fair/poor overall health and mental health in bivariate models. In models containing all significant social risks from bivariate models, adult caregiving and stress remained significant predictors of overall health; food insecurity, housing, loneliness/isolation, and stress remained significant for mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Six- and 12-month look-back periods yielded similar rates of reported social risks. Although most individual social risks are associated with fair/poor overall and mental health, when examined together, only adult caregiving, stress, loneliness/isolation, food, and housing remain significant.

Evaluating a social risk screening and referral program in an urban safety-net hospital emergency department

Objective

The emergency department (ED) is an opportune venue to screen for unmet social needs and connect patients with social services. This quality improvement study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data to examine unmet social needs among ED patients and program implementation.

Methods

From September 2020 to December 2021, an urban safety-net hospital adult ED implemented a social needs screening and referral program. Trained emergency staff screened eligible patients for 5 social needs (housing, food, transportation, utilities, employment), giving resource guides to patients who screened positive (THRIVE+). We collected screening data from the electronic health record, conducted semi-structured interviews with THRIVE+ patients and clinical staff, and directly observed discharge interactions.

Results

Emergency staff screened 58.5% of eligible patients for social risk. Of the screened patients, 27.0% reported at least 1 unmet social need. Of those, 74.8% requested assistance. Screened patients reported housing insecurity (16.3%) as the most prevalent unmet social need followed by food insecurity (13.3%) and unemployment (8.7%). Among interviewed patients, 57.1% recalled being screened, but only 24.5% recalled receiving resource guides. Patients who received guides reported little success connecting with resources and supported universal guide dissemination. Staff expressed preference for warm handoff to social services. Of 13 observed discharge interactions, clinical staff only discussed guides with 2 patients, with no positive endorsement of the guides in any observed interactions.

Conclusions

An ED social needs screening program can be moderately feasible and accepted. We identified housing as the most prevalent need. Significant gaps exist between screening and referral, with few patients receiving resources. Further training and workflow optimization are underway.

A 7-Domain Framework That Can Bridge Clinical Care, Health Systems Science, and Health Equity: Lessons From the H&P 360

The H&P 360 is a reconceptualized history and physical (H&P), which clinical medical students have reported reveals clinically relevant information not elicited by the traditional H&P, informs care planning, promotes interprofessional team care, and enhances patient rapport. In addition to the traditional checklist focused on patients' medical conditions, the H&P 360 includes prompts for gathering limited but critical information in 6 other domains directly relevant to patients' overall health-patient values, goals, and priorities; mental health; behavioral health; social support; living environment and resources; and function. Clinicians are thus reminded to elicit relevant information from each domain appropriate to the context of each clinical encounter. As health systems explore ways to identify and address social drivers of health, medical schools are rapidly expanding curricula beyond biomedical conditions, as reflected in the multifaceted health systems science curriculum. Many of today's medical students struggle to find connections among the core tasks of mastering biomedical clinical medicine, their evolving professional identity and career trajectory, and addressing systemic and societal barriers to population health. The authors argue that the 7-domain framework can serve as a conceptual bridge that links the care of individual patients with topics in the health systems science curriculum to promote health equity. The authors provide illustrative examples of the 7 domains as an organizing lens that can promote curiosity and understanding of seemingly disparate topics, such as interpersonal violence, social drivers of health, and structural racism, as well as help students expand and define their professional identities as physicians beyond diagnosis and treatment of biomedical conditions. The authors invite discussion and experimentation around the use of the 7-domain framework in teaching, assessment, and curriculum development and point to resources for clinical educators for teaching and measuring the effects of the H&P 360 on learners, preceptors, and patients.

Cashin A, Barker T, A. Boyd M, Chiarotto A, Dewidar O, Petkovic J, Sharma S, Tugwell P, Moseley GL. The 'what' and 'how' of screening for social needs in healthcare settings: a scoping review

Background

Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what social needs categories are included in published Social Needs Screening Tools that have been developed for use in primary care settings, and how these social needs are screened.

Methods

We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories.

Results

We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92-94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been 'validated'; 16 reported 'partial' validation; 12 reported that the tool was 'not validated' and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

Association of Social Needs and Healthcare Utilization Among Medicare and Medicaid Beneficiaries in the Accountable Health Communities Model

BACKGROUND

Integration of health-related social needs (HRSNs) data into clinical care is recognized as a driver for improving healthcare. However, few published studies on HRSNs and their impact are available. CMS sought to fill this gap through the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model, a national RCT of HRSN screening, referral, and navigation. Data from the AHC Model could significantly advance the field of HRSN screening and intervention in the USA.

OBJECTIVE

To present data from the Greater Houston AHC (GH-AHC) Model site on HRSN frequency and the association between HRSNs, sociodemographic factors, and self-reported ED utilization using a cross-sectional design. Analyses included descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression.

PARTICIPANTS (OR PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS)

All community-dwelling Medicare, Medicaid, or dually covered beneficiaries at participating GH-AHC clinical delivery sites were eligible.

MAIN MEASURES

Self-reported ED utilization in the previous 12 months served as the outcome; demographic characteristics including race, ethnicity, age, sex, income, education level, number of people living in the household, and insurance type were treated as covariates. HRSNs included food insecurity, housing instability, transportation, difficulty paying utility bills, and interpersonal safety. Clinical delivery site type was used as the clustering variable.

KEY RESULTS

Food insecurity was the most common HRSN identified (38.7%) followed by housing instability (29.0%), transportation (28.0%), and difficulty paying utility bills (26.7%). Interpersonal safety was excluded due to low prevalence. More than half of the beneficiaries (56.9%) reported at least one of the four HRSNs. After controlling for covariates, having multiple co-occurring HRSNs was strongly associated with increased risk of two or more ED visits (OR 1.8-9.47 for two to four needs, respectively; p < 0.001). Beneficiaries with four needs were at almost 10 times higher risk of frequent ED utilization (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is only the second published study to report screening data from the AHC Model. Future research focused on the impact of multiple co-occurring needs on health outcomes is warranted.

2021 SAEM Consensus Conference Proceedings: Research Priorities for Developing Emergency Department Screening Tools for Social Risks and Needs

Introduction: The Emergency Department (ED) acts as a safety net for our healthcare system. While studies have shown increased prevalence of social risks and needs among ED patients, there are many outstanding questions about the validity and use of social risks and needs screening tools in the ED setting. Methods: In this paper, we present research gaps and priorities pertaining to social risks and needs screening tools used in the ED, identified through a consensus approach informed by literature review and external expert feedback as part of the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference -- From Bedside to Policy: Advancing Social Emergency Medicine and Population Health. Results: Four overarching research gaps were identified: (1) Defining the purpose and ethical implications of ED-based screening; (2) Identifying domains of social risks and needs; (3) Developing and validating screening tools; and (4) Defining the patient population and type of screening performed. Furthermore, the following research questions were determined to be of highest priority: (1) What screening tools should be used to identify social risks and needs? (2) Should individual EDs use a national standard screening tools or customized screening tools? (3) What are the most prevalent social risks and needs in the ED? and (4) Which social risks and needs are most amenable to intervention in the ED setting? Conclusion: Answering these research questions will facilitate the use of evidence-based social risks and needs screening tools that address knowledge gaps and improve the health of our communities by better understanding the underlying determinants contributing to their presentation and health outcomes.

A pilot mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of verbal versus electronic screening for adverse social determinants of health

OBJECTIVES

Examining the social risks that influence the health of patients accessing emergency care can inform future efforts to improve health outcomes. The optimal modality for screening in the emergency department (ED) has not yet been identified. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the impact of screening modality on patient satisfaction with the screening process.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled at a large urban academic ED and randomized to verbal versus electronic modalities following informed consent. Participants completed a short demographic survey, a brief validated health literacy test, and a social need and risk screening tool. Participants were purposively sampled to complete qualitative interviews balanced across 4 groups defined by health literacy scores (high vs limited) and screening modality. Quantitative outcomes included screening results and satisfaction with the screening process; qualitative questions focused on experience with the screening process, barriers, and facilitators to screening.

RESULTS

Of 554 patients assessed, 236 were randomized (115 verbal, 121 electronic). Participants were 23% Hispanic, 6% non-Hispanic Black, 58% non-Hispanic White, 38% publicly insured, and 57% privately insured. Two-thirds (67%) identified social needs and risks and the majority (81%) reported satisfaction with the screening. Screening modality was not associated with satisfaction with screening process after adjustment for language, health literacy, and social risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.32, 1.71).

CONCLUSION

Screening modality was not associated with overall satisfaction with screening process. Future strategies can consider the advantage of multimodal screening options, including the use of electronic tools to streamline screening and expand scalability and sustainability.

Screening for Health-Related Social Needs of Emergency Department Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

There has been increasing attention to screening for health-related social needs. However, little is known about the screening practices of emergency departments (EDs). Within New England, we seek to identify the prevalence of ED screening for health-related social needs, understand the factors associated with screening, and understand how screening patterns for health-related social needs differ from those for violence, substance use, and mental health needs.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2018 National Emergency Department Inventory-New England survey, which was administered to all 194 New England EDs during 2019. We used descriptive statistics to compare ED characteristics by screening practices, and multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with screening.

RESULTS

Among the 166 (86%) responding EDs, 64 (39%) reported screening for at least one health-related social need, 160 (96%) for violence (including intimate partner violence or other violent exposures), 148 (89%) for substance use disorder, and 159 (96%) for mental health needs. EDs reported a wide range of social work resources to address identified needs, with 155 (93%) reporting any social worker availability and 41 (27%) reporting continuous availability.

CONCLUSION

New England EDs are screening for health-related social needs at a markedly lower rate than for violence, substance use, and mental health needs. EDs have relatively limited resources available to address health-related social needs. We encourage research on the development of scalable solutions for identifying and addressing health-related social needs in the ED.

The terminology of social emergency medicine: Measuring social determinants of health, social risk, and social need

Emergency medicine has increasingly focused on addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) in emergency medicine. However, efforts to standardize and evaluate measurement tools and compare results across studies have been limited by the plethora of terms (eg, SDoH, health-related social needs, social risk) and a lack of consensus regarding definitions. Specifically, the social risks of an individual may not align with the social needs of an individual, and this has ramifications for policy, research, risk stratification, and payment and for the measurement of health care quality. With the rise of social emergency medicine (SEM) as a field, there is a need for a simplified and consistent set of definitions. These definitions are important for clinicians screening in the emergency department, for health systems to understand service needs, for epidemiological tracking, and for research data sharing and harmonization. In this article, we propose a conceptual model for considering SDoH measurement and provide clear, actionable, definitions of key terms to increase consistency among clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.