Integrating social determinants of health screening and referral during routine emergency department care: evaluation of reach and implementation challenges

Andrea S Wallace, Brenda L Luther, Shawna M Sisler, Bob Wong, Jia-Wen Guo, Andrea S Wallace, Brenda L Luther, Shawna M Sisler, Bob Wong, Jia-Wen Guo

Abstract

Background: Despite the importance of social determinants in health outcomes, little is known about the best practices for screening and referral during clinical encounters. This study aimed to implement universal social needs screening and community service referrals in an academic emergency department (ED), evaluating for feasibility, reach, and stakeholder perspectives.

Methods: Between January 2019 and February 2020, ED registration staff screened patients for social needs using a 10-item, low-literacy, English-Spanish screener on touchscreens that generated automatic referrals to community service outreach specialists and data linkages. The RE-AIM framework, specifically the constructs of reach and adoption, guided the evaluation. Reach was estimated through a number of approaches, completed screenings, and receipt of community service referrals. Adoption was addressed qualitatively via content analysis and qualitative coding techniques from (1) meetings, clinical interactions, and semi-structured interviews with ED staff and (2) an iterative "engagement studio" with an advisory group composed of ED patients representing diverse communities.

Results: Overall, 4608 participants were approached, and 61% completed the screener. The most common reason for non-completion was patient refusal (43%). Forty-seven percent of patients with completed screeners communicated one or more needs, 34% of whom agreed to follow-up by resource specialists. Of the 482 participants referred, 20% were reached by outreach specialists and referred to community agencies. Only 7% of patients completed the full process from screening to community service referral; older, male, non-White, and Hispanic patients were more likely to complete the referral process. Iterative staff (n = 8) observations and interviews demonstrated that, despite instruction for universal screening, patient presentation (e.g., appearance, insurance status) drove screening decisions. The staff communicated discomfort with, and questioned the usefulness of, screening. Patients (n = 10) communicated a desire for improved understanding of their unmet needs, but had concerns about stigmatization and privacy, and communicated how receptivity of screenings and outreach are influenced by the perceived sincerity of screening staff.

Conclusions: Despite the limited time and technical barriers, few patients with social needs ultimately received service referrals. Perspectives of staff and patients suggest that social needs screening during clinical encounters should incorporate structure for facilitating patient-staff relatedness and competence, and address patient vulnerability by ensuring universal, private screenings with clear intent.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04630041 .

Keywords: Emergency service; Health equity; Referral and consultation; Social determinants of health; Socioeconomic factors.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Retention of patients from approach to service referrals

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Social determinants of health: know what affects health. 2018.
    1. Braveman P, Egerter S, Williams DR. The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32(1):381–398. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218.
    1. Garg A, Boynton-Jarrett R, Dworkin PH. Avoiding the unintended consequences of screening for social determinants of health. JAMA. 2016;316(8):813–814. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.9282.
    1. Tsai J, Gelberg L, Rosenheck RA. Changes in physical health after supported housing: results from the Collaborative Initiative to End Chronic Homelessness. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1703–1708. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05070-y.
    1. Walker RJ, Jackson JL. How do we address the influence of social determinants on health? J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1673–1674. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05167-4.
    1. Finkelstein A, Zhou A, Taubman S, Doyle J. Health care hotspotting—a randomized, controlled trial. New Engl J Med. 2020;382(2):152–162. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1906848.
    1. LaForge K, Gold R, Cottrell E, Bunce AE, Proser M, Hollombe C, Dambrun K, Cohen DJ, Clark KD. How 6 organizations developed tools and processes for social determinants of health screening in primary care: an overview. J Ambul Care Manage. 2018;41(1):2–14. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000221.
    1. Gottlieb L, Garcia K, Wing H, Manchanda R. Clinical interventions addressing nonmedical health determinants in Medicaid managed care. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):370.
    1. Gottlieb L, Tobey R, Cantor J, Hessler D, Adler NE. Integrating social and medical data to improve population health: opportunities and barriers. Health Aff. 2016;35(11):2116–2123. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0723.
    1. Sullivan HR. Hospitals’ obligations to address social determinants of health. AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(3):E248–E258. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.248.
    1. Hsu C, Cruz S, Placzek H, Chapdelaine M, Levin S, Gutierrez F, Cheadle A. Patient perspectives on addressing social needs in primary care using a screening and resource referral intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;35(2):481–489. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05397-6.
    1. Tong ST, Liaw WR, Kashiri PL, Pecsok J, Rozman J, Bazemore AW, Krist AH. Clinician experiences with screening for social needs in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(3):351–363. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.03.170419.
    1. Wallace AS, Luther B, Guo JW, Wang CY, Sisler S, Wong B. Implementing a social determinants screening and referral infrastructure during routine emergency department visits, Utah, 2017-2018. Prev Chronic Dis. 2020;17:E45. doi: 10.5888/pcd17.190339.
    1. Heller CG, Parsons AS, Chambers EC, Fiori KP, Rehm CD. Social risks among primary care patients in a large urban health system. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(4):514–525. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.11.011.
    1. Utah 211. Accessed September, 24 2021. .
    1. American Academy of Family Physicians (2020). Assessment and action: address your patients’ social determinants of health. Retrieved on January 25, 2021 at
    1. Billioux A, Verlander K, Anthony S, Alley D. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: the Accountable Health Communities screening tool. NAM Perspect. 2017;7(5). 10.31478/201705b.
    1. Venkatesh AK, Chou SC, Li SX, Choi J, Ross JS, D’Onofrio G, Krumholz HM, Dharmarajan K. Association between insurance status and access to hospital care in emergency department disposition. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):686–693. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0037.
    1. Zhou RA, Baicker K, Taubman S, Finkelstein AN. The uninsured do not use the emergency department more-they use other care less. Health Aff. 2017;36(12):2115–2122. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0218.
    1. Guo JW, Wallace AS, Luther BL, Wong B. Psychometric evaluation of the screener for intensifying community referrals for health. Eval Health Prof. 2021:1632787211029360. Advance online publication. 10.1177/01632787211029360.
    1. Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(3):257–265. doi: 10.1177/1090198113486805.
    1. Lewis CC, Mettert KD, Dorsey CN, Martinez RG, Weiner BJ, Nolen E, Stanick C, Halko H, Powell BJ. An updated protocol for a systematic review of implementation-related measures. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0728-3.
    1. Stanick CF, Halko HM, Dorsey CN, Weiner BJ, Powell BJ, Palinkas LA, Lewis CC. Operationalizing the ‘pragmatic’ measures construct using a stakeholder feedback and a multi-method approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):882. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3709-2.
    1. Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Glasgow RE. Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(2):66–75. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2902s_10.
    1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, V. L. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, Consortium RE. The REDCap Consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)-a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Joosten YA, Israel TL, Head A, Vaughn Y, Villalta Gil V, Mouton C, Wilkins CH. Enhancing translational researchers' ability to collaborate with community stakeholders: Lessons from the Community Engagement Studio. J Clin Transl Sci. 2018;2(4):201–7. 10.1017/cts.2018.32.
    1. Gubrium A, Leckenby D, Harvey MW, Marcus BH, Rosal MC, Chasan-Taber L. Perspectives of health educators and interviewers in a randomized controlled trial of a postpartum diabetes prevention program for Latinas: a qualitative assessment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):357. 10.1186/s12913-019-4207-x.
    1. Morgan D. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. SAGE Publications, Inc; 2014. 10.4135/9781544304533.
    1. Hwang S. Utilizing qualitative data analysis software: a review of Atlas.ti. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2008;26(4):519–527. doi: 10.1177/0894439307312485.
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985.
    1. Kim H, Sefcik JS, Bradway C. Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: a systematic review. Res Nurs Health. 2017;40(1):23–42. doi: 10.1002/nur.21768.
    1. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240x.
    1. Montaño DE, Kasprzyk D. Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. Jossey-Bass. 2008. pp. 67–96.
    1. Cantor MN, Thorpe L. Integrating Data On Social Determinants Of Health Into Electronic Health Records. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2018;37(4):585–90. 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1252.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit