Clinical-Community Partnerships to Identify Patients With Food Insecurity and Address Food Needs.

INTRODUCTION: More than 42 million people in the United States are food insecure. Although some health care entities are addressing food insecurity among patients because of associations with disease risk and management, little is known about the components of these initiatives. METHODS: The Systematic Screening and Assessment Method was used to conduct a landscape assessment of US health care entity-based programs that screen patients for food insecurity and connect them with food resources. A network of food insecurity researchers, experts, and practitioners identified 57 programs, 22 of which met the inclusion criteria of being health care entities that 1) screen patients for food insecurity, 2) link patients to food resources, and 3) target patients including adults aged 50 years or older (a focus of this assessment). Data on key features of each program were abstracted from documentation and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Most programs (n = 13) focus on patients with chronic disease, and most (n = 12) partner with food banks. Common interventions include referrals to or a list of food resources (n = 19), case managers who navigate patients to resources (n = 15), assistance with federal benefit applications (n = 14), patient education and skill building (n = 13), and distribution of fruit and vegetable vouchers redeemable at farmers markets (n = 8). Most programs (n = 14) routinely screen all patients. CONCLUSION: The programs reviewed use various strategies to screen patients, including older adults, for food insecurity and to connect them to food resources. Research is needed on program effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. Such evidence can be used to inform the investments of potential stakeholders, including health care entities, community organizations, and insurers.

Systolic ejection click versus split first heart sound: Are our ears deceiving us?

OBJECTIVE: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is associated with potential lifetime complications, but auscultation of a BAV click is commonly missed or mistaken for a benign split first heart sound. Our objective was to determine whether pediatric cardiologists could reliably distinguish between BAV clicks and benign split first heart sounds. DESIGN: Quality evaluation project using de-identified recordings from an outpatient pediatric cardiology clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-one cardiologists listened to five de-identified recordings of pediatric heart sounds (three with BAV clicks, two with mitral components of benign split first heart sounds) and indicated whether they believed each recording was a BAV or split first heart sound. The accuracy of diagnoses was determined using percent agreement and calculated kappa coefficients for the cohort and subgroups based on those with less than 10 years of experience versus those with ≥10 years. To assess precision, a kappa extension was used for multiple raters to assess interrater agreement. RESULTS: Among participants, diagnostic accuracy of BAV click was 38%, while accuracy of split first heart sound was 41%. No participant correctly diagnosed all sounds. No difference in agreement was observed when stratifying by experience. Kappa was -0.11 (CI 95% -0.31 to 0.08) for all raters, -0.03 (CI 95% -0.39 to 0.33) for those with less than 10 years' experience, and -0.15 (CI 95% -0.38 to 0.08) for those with ≥10 years' experience. The kappa statistic among the 21 raters was 0.01 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.04), indicating poor precision among the raters. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of pediatric cardiologists, the diagnostic accuracy of BAV clicks versus split first heart sounds was worse than chance. There was no association between years of experience and diagnostic accuracy. While further study is needed, these data suggest that an echocardiogram may be valuable when either a systolic ejection click or split first heart sound is heard.