Homelessness Among Acute Care Patients Within a Large Health Care System in Northern California.

The impacts of homelessness on health and health care access are detrimental. Intervention and efforts to improve outcomes and increase availability of affordable housing have mainly originated from the public health sector and government. The role that large community-based health systems may play has yet to be established. This study characterizes patients self-identified as homeless in acute care facilities in a large integrated health care system in Northern California to inform the development of collaborative interventions addressing unmet needs of this vulnerable population. The authors compared sociodemographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and health care utilization of individuals who did and did not self-identify as homeless and characterized their geographical distribution in relation to Sutter hospitals and homeless resources. Between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020, 5% (N = 20,259) of the acute care settings patients had evidence of homelessness, among which 51.1% age <45 years, 66.4% males, and 24% non-Hispanic Black. Patients experiencing homelessness had higher emergency department utilization and lower utilization of outpatient and urgent care services. Mental health conditions were more common among patients experiencing homelessness. More than half of the hospitals had >5% of patients who identified as homeless. Some hospitals with higher proportions of patients experiencing homelessness are not located near many shelter resources. By understanding patients who self-identify as homeless, it is possible to assess the role of the health system in addressing their unmet needs. Accurate identification is the first step for the health systems to develop and deliver better solutions through collaborations with nonprofit organizations, community partners, and government agencies.

Racial Disparities in Pulse Oximeter Device Inaccuracy and Estimated Clinical Impact on COVID-19 Treatment Course.

Arterial blood oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)) may be differentially less accurate for people with darker skin pigmentation, which could potentially affect the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. We analyzed pulse oximeter accuracy and its association with COVID-19 treatment outcomes using electronic health record data from Sutter Health, a large, mixed-payer, integrated health-care delivery system in Northern California. We analyzed 2 cohorts: 1) 43,753 non-Hispanic White (NHW) or non-Hispanic Black/African-American (NHB) adults with concurrent arterial blood gas oxygen saturation/SpO2 measurements taken between January 2020 and February 2021; and 2) 8,735 adults who went to a hospital emergency department with COVID-19 between July 2020 and February 2021. Pulse oximetry systematically overestimated blood oxygenation by 1% more in NHB individuals than in NHW individuals. For people with COVID-19, this was associated with lower admission probability (-3.1 percentage points), dexamethasone treatment (-3.1 percentage points), and supplemental oxygen treatment (-4.5 percentage points), as well as increased time to treatment: 37.2 minutes before dexamethasone initiation and 278.5 minutes before initiation of supplemental oxygen. These results call for additional investigation of pulse oximeters and suggest that current guidelines for development, testing, and calibration of these devices should be revisited, investigated, and revised.

Evaluation of a social determinants of health screening questionnaire and workflow pilot within an adult ambulatory clinic.

BACKGROUND: There is increased recognition in clinical settings of the importance of documenting, understanding, and addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDOH) to improve health and address health inequities. This study evaluated a pilot of a standardized SDOH screening questionnaire and workflow in an ambulatory clinic within a large integrated health network in Northern California. METHODS: The pilot screened for SDOH needs using an 11-question Epic-compatible paper questionnaire assessing eight SDOH and health behavior domains: financial resource, transportation, stress, depression, intimate partner violence, social connections, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. Eligible patients for the pilot receiving a Medicare wellness, adult annual, or new patient visits during a five-week period (February-March, 2020), and a comparison group from the same time period in 2019 were identified. Sociodemographic data (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and payment type), visit type, length of visit, and responses to SDOH questions were extracted from electronic health records, and a staff experience survey was administered. The evaluation was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. RESULTS: Two-hundred eighty-nine patients were eligible for SDOH screening. Responsiveness by domain ranged from 55 to 67%, except for depression. Half of patients had at least one identified social need, the most common being stress (33%), physical activity (22%), alcohol (12%), and social connections (6%). Physical activity needs were identified more in females (81% vs. 19% in males, p < .01) and at new patient/transfer visits (48% vs. 13% at Medicare wellness and 38% at adult wellness visits, p < .05). Average length of visit was 39.8 min, which was 1.7 min longer than that in 2019. Visit lengths were longer among patients 65+ (43.4 min) and patients having public insurance (43.6 min). Most staff agreed that collecting SDOH data was relevant and accepted the SDOH questionnaire and workflow but highlighted opportunities for improvement in training and connecting patients to resources. CONCLUSION: Use of evidence-based SDOH screening questions and associated workflow was effective in gathering patient SDOH information and identifying social needs in an ambulatory setting. Future studies should use qualitative data to understand patient and staff experiences with collecting SDOH information in healthcare settings.

Measuring and Promoting SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Equity: Development of a COVID-19 Vaccine Equity Index.

Purpose: The coronavirus pandemic has created the greatest public health crisis in a century, causing >500,000 deaths in the United States alone. Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have borne a disproportionate burden of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Recently developed FDA-approved vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce severe COVID-19-related outcomes. Vaccination campaigns have the potential to advance health equity by prioritizing allocation to those at highest risk while striving for herd immunity. Large integrated health systems have been faced with the daunting task of meeting the rapidly evolving needs of diverse patient populations for the provision of population-based testing, treatment, education, and now vaccine distribution. We have designed a COVID-19 vaccine equity index (CVEI) to guide health system vaccination strategy. Methods: We considered proportion unvaccinated within a health care system. We then used real-time readily available electronic health record (EHR) COVID-19 testing positivity and proportion hospitalized to measure burden of illness by race/ethnicity. We used conditional probability and statistical theory to measure equity for unvaccinated individuals and to derive an index to highlight these inequities for specific subgroups. Results: We present an illustrative hypothetical example using simulated data for which we calculated the CVEI for non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic patients. In the example, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had inequitable outcomes. Conclusion: The index can be widely implemented to promote more equitable outcomes among racial/ethnic groups, reducing morbidity and mortality within the overall population as we pursue the collective goal of herd immunity through mass vaccination.

Disparities In Outcomes Among COVID-19 Patients In A Large Health Care System In California.

As the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spreads throughout the United States, evidence is mounting that racial and ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are bearing a disproportionate burden of illness and death. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of COVID-19 patients at Sutter Health, a large integrated health system in northern California, to measure potential disparities. We used Sutter's integrated electronic health record to identify adults with suspected and confirmed COVID-19, and we used multivariable logistic regression to assess risk of hospitalization, adjusting for known risk factors, such as race/ethnicity, sex, age, health, and socioeconomic variables. We analyzed 1,052 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from the period January 1-April 8, 2020. Among our findings, we observed that compared with non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic African American patients had 2.7 times the odds of hospitalization, after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and income. We explore possible explanations for this, including societal factors that either result in barriers to timely access to care or create circumstances in which patients view delaying care as the most sensible option. Our study provides real-world evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in the presentation of COVID-19.

Implementation of a group-based diabetes prevention program within a healthcare delivery system.

BACKGROUND: Group-based Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPP), aligned with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, promote clinically significant weight loss and reduce cardio-metabolic risks. Studies have examined implementation of the DPP in community settings, but less is known about its integration in healthcare systems. In 2010, a group-based DPP known as the Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) was implemented within a large healthcare delivery system in Northern California, across three geographically distinct regional administration divisions of the organization within 12 state counties, with varying underlying socio-demographics. The regional divisions implemented the program independently, allowing for natural variation in its real-world integration. We leveraged this natural experiment to qualitatively assess the implementation of a DPP in this healthcare system and, especially, its fidelity to the original GLB curriculum and potential heterogeneity in implementation across clinics and regional divisions. METHODS: Using purposive sampling, we conducted semi-structured interviews with DPP lifestyle coaches. Data were analyzed using mixed-method techniques, guided by an implementation outcomes framework consisting of eight constructs: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. RESULTS: We conducted 33 interviews at 20 clinics across the three regional administrative divisions. Consistencies in implementation of the program were found across regions in terms of satisfaction with the evidence base (acceptability), referral methods (adoption), eligibility criteria (fidelity), and strategies to increase retention and effectiveness (sustainability). Heterogeneity in implementation across regions were found in all categories, including: the number and frequency of sessions (fidelity); program branding (adoption); lifestyle coach training (adoption), and patient-facing cost (cost). Lifestyle coaches expressed differing attitudes about curriculum content (acceptability) and suitability of educational level (appropriateness). While difficulties with recruitment were common across regions (feasibility), strategies used to address these challenges differed (sustainability). CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in the implementation of the DPP within a large multi-site healthcare system, revealing a dynamic and important tension between retaining fidelity to the original program and tailoring the program to meet the local needs. Moreover, certain challenges across sites may represent opportunities for considering alternative implementation to anticipate these barriers. Further research is needed to explore how differences in implementation domains impact program effectiveness.

Measuring Health Equity for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions in a Large Integrated Health Care System: The Development of an Index.

Disparities in outcomes for preventive and primary health care services often result when vulnerable patients rely on episodic encounters for emergency services that do not meet their long-term health needs. Understanding health outcomes in socially or economically disadvantaged subgroups is crucial to improving community health, and it requires innovative analytics and dynamic application of clinical and population data. While it is common practice to use proxy indicators, such as quality of life and mortality, when discussing health equity, these have shown limited utility and are rarely applied at a population-level within a health system. Therefore, we designed and implemented an index, calculated as the ratio of observed-to-expected encounters, to identify and quantify health inequalities in health care systems. Providing equitable care, as measured by health outcomes, is analogous to precision medicine applied to social determinants. For health systems, the use of this index will facilitate the development of specially-tailored interventions to address inequity and provides a tool to measure the impact of such programs.