Leveraging Integrated Primary Care to Address Patients' and Families' Unmet Social Needs: Aligning Practice with National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Recommendations.

Primary care is well-poised to address unmet social needs that affect health. Integrated primary care is increasingly common and can be leveraged to facilitate identification of practice and clinician-level modifiable characteristics and assist practices to address unmet social needs for patients and families. A recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)'s consensus report identified 5 critical system-level activities to facilitate the integration of addressing social needs into health care: awareness (ask patients), adjustment (flexible intervention delivery), assistance (intervention to address the social need), alignment (link with community resources), and advocacy (policy change). This article outlines how integrated primary care characteristics, such as routine screening, functional workflows, interprofessional team communication, and patient-centered practices, exemplify the NASEM report's activities and offer robust biopsychosocial tools for addressing social needs. We provide a case to illustrate how these strategies might be used in practice.

Implementation of Health-Related Social Needs Screening at Michigan Health Centers: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are leaders in screening for and addressing patient's health-related social needs but variation exists in screening practices. This variation is relatively unexplored, particularly the influences of organizational and state policies. We employed a qualitative descriptive approach to study social needs screening practices at Michigan FQHCs to characterize screening processes and identify drivers of variation in screening implementation. METHODS: Site visits and semistructured interviews were conducted from October 2016 through March 2017, to explore implementation of social needs screening in clinical practice. Five FQHCs were selected through maximum variation sampling. Within each site, snowball sampling identified care team members highly knowledgeable about social needs screening. We conducted 4 to 5 interviews per site. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 23 participants from 5 sites; these sites varied by geography, age distribution, and race/ethnicity. We identified 4 themes: (1) statewide initiatives and local leadership drove variation in screening practices; (2) as community health workers (CHWs) played an integral role in identifying patients' needs, their roles often shifted from that of screener to implementer; (3) social needs screening data was variably integrated into electronic health records and infrequently used for population health management; and (4) sites experienced barriers to social needs screening that limited the perceived impact and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: FQHCs placed value on the role of CHWs, on sustainable initiatives, and on funding to support continued social needs screening in primary care settings.

Screening for Interpersonal Violence: Missed Opportunities and Potential Harms.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11. CONCLUSIONS: Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Screening Discordance and Characteristics of Patients With Housing-Related Social Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems are increasingly interested in identifying patients' housing-related risks, but minimal information exists to inform screening question selection. The primary study aim is to evaluate discordance among 5 housing-related screening questions used in health care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional multisite survey of social risks used in a convenience sample of adults seeking care for themselves or their child at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states (2018-2019). Housing-related risks were measured using 2 questions from the Accountable Health Communities screening tool (current/anticipated housing instability, current housing quality problems) and 3 from the Children's HealthWatch recommended housing instability screening measures (prior 12-month: rent/mortgage strain, number of moves, current/recent homelessness). The 2-sided Fisher's exact tests analyzed housing-related risks and participant characteristics; logistic regression explored associations with reported health (2019-2020). RESULTS: Of 835 participants, 52% screened positive for ≥1 housing-related risk (n=430). Comparing the tools, 32.8% (n=274) screened discordant: 11.9% (n=99) screened positive by Children's HealthWatch questions but negative by Accountable Health Communities, and 21.0% (n=175) screened positive by the Accountable Health Communities tool but negative by Children's HealthWatch (p<0.001). Worse health was associated with screening positive for current/anticipated housing instability (AOR=0.56, 95% CI=0.32, 0.96) or current/recent homelessness (AOR=0.57, 95% CI=0.34, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 housing questions captured different housing-related risks, contributed to different health consequences, and were relevant to different subpopulations. Before implementing housing-related screening initiatives, health systems should understand how specific measures surface distinct housing-related barriers. Measure selection should depend on program goals and intervention resources.

Part I: A Quantitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019. RESULTS: Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Part II: A Qualitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes. RESULTS: Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Associations between Food Security Status and Diet-Related Outcomes among Students at a Large, Public Midwestern University.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is a growing issue of concern on college campuses. While many studies have focused on predictors of food insecurity, fewer studies have examined how food insecurity affects diet and diet-related outcomes among college students. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine differences in dietary intake, food and cooking agency, and body mass index (calculated as kg/m2) by food security status in a sample of college students at a large, public midwestern university. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey administered from March to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Students were recruited from a random sample (n=2,000) provided by the university, which included an oversample of minority racial/ethnic students from lower-income households and first-generation students. The response rate was 43% (n=851). After excluding students with missing data, the final sample was 754 enrolled students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Food security status was measured using the US Adult Food Security Survey Module. Dietary intake was assessed using the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire. Cooking and food agency was measured using the Cooking and Food Provisioning Action Scale, a new validated questionnaire. Body mass index was calculated from self-reported height and weight. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED: Differences between food security categories and diet-related outcomes were examined using generalized linear models. Models adjusted for sociodemographic covariates, such as student's age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of financial aid. RESULTS: Compared to students with high food security, low food security was associated with lower intake of fruits, and very low food security was associated with higher intakes of total added sugar and added sugar from sugar-sweetened beverages. Marginal and very low food security were positively associated with body mass index. Marginal, low, and very low food security were inversely associated with cooking and food agency. CONCLUSIONS: Students with food insecurity experience diet-related challenges that could translate into health disparities over time. More research is needed to understand the longitudinal effects of food insecurity on student health and well being.

Perspectives from the Society for Pediatric Research: interventions targeting social needs in pediatric clinical care.

The social determinants of health (SDoH) are defined by the World Health Organization as the "conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age." Within pediatrics, studies have highlighted links between these underlying social, economic, and environmental conditions, and a range of health outcomes related to both acute and chronic disease. Additionally, within the adult literature, multiple studies have shown significant links between social problems experienced during childhood and "adult diseases" such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension. A variety of potential mechanisms for such links have been explored including differential access to care, exposure to carcinogens and pathogens, health-affecting behaviors, and physiologic responses to allostatic load (i.e., toxic stress). This robust literature supports the importance of the SDoH and the development and evaluation of social needs interventions. These interventions are also driven by evolving economic realities, most importantly, the shift from fee-for-service to value-based payment models. This article reviews existing evidence regarding pediatric-focused clinical interventions that address the SDoH, those that target basic needs such as food insecurity, housing insecurity, and diminished access to care. The paper summarizes common challenges encountered in the evaluation of such interventions. Finally, the paper concludes by introducing key opportunities for future inquiry.

Screening for Social Determinants of Health in Michigan Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Through an academic-community partnership with a statewide consortium of health centers (HCs) in Michigan, we characterize the current scope of screening for social determinants of health (SDH). METHODS: We requested copies of forms used to screen for SDH at the 39 HC organizations in Michigan. Using content analysis, we examined variation in screening domains and processes. We present descriptive analyses of HC characteristics and patient demographics. RESULTS: We received screening documentation from 23 of the 39 HCs (59%), representing 167 delivery sites. We found broad empiric consensus regarding a core set of 13 SDH screening domains that align with nationally recommended screening guidelines. Two additional domains, Culture and Functional Status, were screened for by <40% of HCs. While patient self-report is the most frequent mode of SDH screening (41%), many HCs use staff members to administer the screening documents. CONCLUSIONS: HCs across a large and diverse state are screening for SDH and largely agree on core SDH screening domains. Using existing empiric data from frontline providers can inform potential best practices in SDH screening.

Understanding type 2 diabetes mellitus screening practices among primary care physicians: a qualitative chart-stimulated recall study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can prevent future health problems, yet many individuals with these conditions are undiagnosed. This could be due, in part, to primary care physicians' (PCP) screening practices, about which little is known. The objectives of this study were to identify factors that influence PCPs' decisions to screen patients for T2DM and to characterize their interpretation and communication of screening test results to patients. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured chart-stimulated recall interviews with 20 University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) primary care physicians. PCPs were asked about their recent decisions to screen or not screen 134 purposively sampled non-diabetic patients who met American Diabetes Association criteria for screening for T2DM. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative directed content analysis. Data on patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were abstracted from the electronic health record. RESULTS: The most common reasons PCPs gave for not screening 63 patients for T2DM were knowledge of a previously normal screening test (49%) and a visit for reasons other than a health maintenance examination (48%). The most common reasons PCPs gave for screening 71 patients for T2DM were knowledge of a previously abnormal screening test (49%), and patients' weight (42%) and age (38%). PCPs correctly interpreted 89% of screening test results and communicated 95% of test results to patients. Among 24 patients found to have prediabetes, PCPs usually (58%) recommended weight loss and increased physical activity but never recommended participation in a Diabetes Prevention Program or use of metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Previous screening test results, visit types, and patients' weight and age influenced PCPs' decisions to screen for T2DM. When patients were screened, test results were generally correctly interpreted and consistently communicated. Recommendations to patients with prediabetes could better reflect evidence-based strategies to prevent T2DM.