US Medical-Legal Partnerships to Address Health-Harming Legal Needs: Closing the Health Injustice Gap.

The medical-legal partnership (MLP) model is emerging across the USA as a powerful tool to address the adverse social conditions underlying health injustice. MLPs embed legal experts into healthcare teams to address health-harming legal needs with civil legal remedies. We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2007 and 2022 to characterize the structure and impacts of US MLPs on patients, providers, and healthcare systems. We found that MLPs largely serve vulnerable patient populations by integrating legal experts into community-based clinical settings or children's hospitals, although patient populations and settings varied widely. In most models, healthcare providers were trained to screen patients for legal needs and refer them to legal experts. MLPs provided a wide range of services, such as assistance accessing public benefits (e.g., Social Security, Medicaid, cash assistance) and legal representation for immigration and family law matters. Patients and their families also benefited from increased knowledge about legal rights and systems. Though the evidence base remains nascent, available studies show MLPs to be associated with greater access to care, fewer hospitalizations, and improved physical and mental health outcomes. Medical and legal providers who were engaged in MLPs reported interdisciplinary learning, and healthcare systems often experienced high returns on investment through cost savings and increased Medicaid reimbursement. Many MLPs also conducted advocacy and education to effect broader policy changes related to population health and social needs. To optimize the MLP model, more rigorous research, systematic implementation practices, evaluation metrics, and sustainable funding mechanisms are recommended. Broader integration of MLPs into healthcare systems could help address root causes of health inequity among historically marginalized populations in the USA.

Validating Existing Scales for Identification of Acute Stroke in an Inpatient Setting.

Background and Purpose: A significant proportion of strokes occur while patients are hospitalized for other reasons. Numerous stroke scales have been developed and validated for use in pre-hospital and emergency department settings, and there is growing interest to adapt these scales for use in the inpatient setting. We aimed to validate existing stroke scales for inpatient stroke codes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts from inpatient stroke code activations at an urban academic medical center from January 2016 through December 2018. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for each specified stroke scale including NIHSS, FAST, BE-FAST, 2CAN, FABS, TeleStroke Mimic, and LAMS. We also used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of stroke and to derive a novel scale. Results: Of the 958 stroke code activations reviewed, 151 (15.8%) had a final diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The area under the curve (AUC) of existing scales varied from .465 (FABS score) to .563 (2CAN score). Four risk factors independently predicted stroke: (1) recent cardiovascular procedure, (2) platelet count less than 50 × 109 per liter, (3) gaze deviation, and (4) presence of unilateral leg weakness. Combining these 4 factors into a new score yielded an AUC of .653 (95% confidence interval [CI] .604-.702). Conclusion: This study suggests that currently available stroke scales may not be sufficient to differentiate strokes from mimics in the inpatient setting. Our data suggest that novel approaches may be required to help with diagnosis in this unique population.