Designing an implementation strategy to increase health-related social needs screening: Applying the PRISM framework in a resource-limited clinical setting.

Despite growing acceptability of health-related social needs (HRSN) screening and increasing policy incentives for adoption, clinical implementation of HRSN screening remains low. HRSN screening has been particularly difficult for Community Health Centers (CHCs), which have limited resources to implement and sustain new workflows. While CHCs provide care to patients with disproportionately high levels of unmet social needs, identifying HRSN screening implementation strategies that take CHC-specific contexts into account remains elusive. This study uses the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to design an implementation strategy accounting for the unique context of CHCs. We used Rapid Ethnographic Assessment observations and stakeholder focus groups to identify current workflow barriers and facilitators to HRSN screening, and to develop implementation strategies that include multi-level contexts and perspectives. We identified eight themes contributing to low screening implementation: perceived stigma around screening; need for community-based solutions; re-confirming organizational priorities and values; Electronic Medical Record (EMR) limitations; multi-tasking pressures limiting implementation; staff turnover; limited knowledge of regulatory requirements; and community resource availability for referral. Based on the themes, we identified implementation strategies including non-EMR data collection; integration into the workflow for multiple staff members; creation of new training and educational modules; and identification of peer champions for retraining in real time. Administrative requirements are necessary but not sufficient for implementation of HRSN screening in CHCs. Resource-constrained settings benefit from context-specific stakeholder engagement to improve implementation success. The use of PRISM ensured contextual factors were central to the implementation strategy design.

Health care systems are encouraged to screen for health-related social needs (HRSN), such as housing and food insecurity, yet it has been difficult to implement these new screening workflows. This is especially true for Community Health Centers (CHCs) that have limited resources to implement new workflows. Using a framework that accounts for the unique environment of CHCs, we observed current workflows and conducted focus groups to develop an implementation strategy to facilitate HRSN screening. The new strategy used paper-based workflows to facilitate patient participation and identified clinical champions to engage staff. While these findings are useful in CHCs that might not have sufficient resources to develop screening processes in the Electronic Medical Record, they are also applicable to other low-resourced settings that might want to include HRSNs in patient care, but do not have resources or staff to do it.

Nurse navigation, symptom monitoring and exercise in vulnerable patients with lung cancer: feasibility of the NAVIGATE intervention.

We developed the Navigate intervention to improve survival among vulnerable lung cancer patients. In this intervention-only study, we examined feasibility in terms of recruitment, retention, attendance, adherence, and acceptability to specify adjustments to study procedures and intervention components prior to a randomized trial. The Navigate intervention includes nurse navigation, patient-reported outcomes, and physical exercise. Patients ≥ 18 years old, diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at any stage, with performance status ≤ 2, eligible for cancer treatment and vulnerable according to a screening instrument were included. The recruitment goal of eligible patients was 40% while the retention goal was 85%. The predefined cut-offs for sufficient attendance and adherence were ≥ 75%. Acceptability was evaluated by semi-structured interviews with participants, nurse navigators, and physiotherapists. Seventeen (56%) out of 30 screened patients were considered vulnerable and eligible for the study, 14 (82%) accepted participation, and 3 (21%) were subsequently excluded due to ineligibility, leaving 11 patients. Four patients dropped out (36%) and four patients died (36%) during follow-up and 3 (27%) were retained. All 11 patients participated in nurse sessions (mean 16, range 1-36) with 88% attendance and dialogue tools being applied in 68% of sessions. Ninety-one percent of patients responded to PROs (mean of 9 PROs, range 1-24) with 76% of the PRO questionnaires used (attendance) and 100% adherence (completion of all questions in PRO questionnaires), and 55% participated in exercise sessions with 58% attendance and 85% adherence. We identified important barriers primarily related to transportation, but overall acceptability was high. The Navigate intervention was feasible with high participation, acceptability and satisfactory adherence. Retention and exercise attendance were low, which resulted in adjustments.Trial registration: The feasibility study was initiated prior to the multicenter randomized controlled trial registered by ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT05053997; date 23/09/2021).

Understanding treatment decisions for Hodgkin lymphoma: a qualitative study.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) affects older and younger patients and includes multiple options for initial treatment. We sought to examine the decision processes of practicing oncologists caring for patients with newly diagnosed HL. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored their perspectives about treatment decisions. We completed thematic analysis using the Anderson Behavioral Model of Health Services framework to identify factors associated with initial decisions. We completed 22 interviews, grouping findings into contextual factors, individual characteristics, and physician preferences. Paternalism was widely cited, along with collaboration between community and academic colleagues. Participants used sequential therapy but not geriatric assessment in care for older patients. Physicians had varied responses about use of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Bv)-based therapy based on perceptions about benefit versus toxicity. Our work suggests a need to further understand the heterogeneity of clinical practices, especially in the post-approval setting of new therapies.

Designing a Wastewater-Based Epidemiology Study at the U.S. Air Force Academy: Using Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 to Test a Sentinel System for Early Disease Outbreak Detection.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in wastewater has been proposed as a sentinel surveillance epidemiological tool for detection of infectious disease at a community level and as a complementary approach to syndromic surveillance of infectious disease outbreaks. We have designed a study to test the presence and quantity of SARS-CoV2, the virus responsible for COVID19, in the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) of the U.S. Air Force Academy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wastewater samples were tested in the laboratory to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV2 RNA using reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Raw SARS-CoV2 viral titer in wastewater was normalized to the viral titer of a fecal marker, pepper mild mottle virus, to correct for dilutions. Temporal and spatial trends of COVID19 were analyzed. Furthermore, we compared wastewater analysis results against clinical data to assist public health decisions. RESULTS: Preliminary data suggest that wastewater analysis can provide temporal and spatial trends of COVID19. The geographically discrete WWTF at the U.S. Air Force suggests that wastewater testing is a useful approach to developing a comprehensive sentinel surveillance system. CONCLUSIONS: Together with ongoing syndromic surveillance data, this proof-of-concept study seeks to determine whether early detection of SARS-CoV2 in a closed system WWTF correlates to changes in community and clinically reported COVID19. The well-documented population served by the geographically discrete WWTF at the U.S. Air Force Academy may serve to better elucidate the adjunctive role of wastewater testing in a comprehensive surveillance system. These results may be of particular interest to the DoD and local commanders given the WWTFs under their immediate control and the information that these studies may provide in support of operational readiness through early detection of disease outbreaks.

Measuring What Matters: A Qualitative Study of the Relevance and Clinical Utility of PROMIS Surveys in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relevance and clinical utility of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Adults with SLE receiving routine outpatient care at a tertiary care academic medical center participated in a qualitative study. Patients completed PROMIS computerized adaptive tests (CATs) in 12 selected domains and rated the relevance of each domain to their experience with SLE. Focus groups and interviews were conducted to elucidate the relevance of the PROMIS surveys, identify additional domains of importance, and explore the utility of the surveys in clinical care. Focus group and interview transcripts were coded, and a thematic analysis was performed using an iterative inductive process. RESULTS: Twenty-eight women and 4 men participated in 4 focus groups and 4 interviews, respectively. Participants endorsed the relevance and comprehensiveness of the selected PROMIS domains in capturing the effect of SLE on their lives. They ranked fatigue, pain interference, sleep disturbance, physical function, and applied cognition abilities as the most salient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains. They suggested that the disease-agnostic PROMIS questions holistically captured their lived experience of SLE and its common comorbidities. Participants were enthusiastic about using PROMIS surveys in clinical care and described potential benefits in enabling disease monitoring and management, facilitating communication, and empowering patients. CONCLUSION: PROMIS includes the HRQOL domains that are of most importance to individuals with SLE. Patients suggest that these universal tools can holistically capture the impact of SLE and enhance routine clinical care.

"To Be Honest, You Probably Would Have to Read It 50 Times": Stakeholders Views on Using the Opt-Out Approach for Vaccination in Jails.

Background: Despite national guidelines on infectious disease testing and vaccination in prisons, there is heterogeneity on the implementation of these practices in jails. We sought to better understand perspectives on the implementation of opt-out vaccination for infectious diseases in jails by interviewing a broad group of stakeholders involved in infectious diseases vaccination, testing, and treatment in Massachusetts jails. Methods: The research team conducted semistructured interviews with people incarcerated in Hampden County Jail (Ludlow, Massachusetts), clinicians working in jail and community settings, corrections administrators, and representatives from public health, government, and industry between July 2021 and March 2022. Results: Forty-eight people were interviewed, including 13 people incarcerated at the time of interview. Themes that emerged included the following: misunderstandings of what opt-out means, indifference to the way vaccines are offered, belief that using the opt-out approach will increase the number of individuals who receive vaccination, and that opt-out provides an easy way for vaccine rejection and reluctance to accept vaccination. Conclusions: There was a clear divide in stakeholders' support of the opt-out approach, which was more universally supported by those who work outside of jails compared to those who work within or are incarcerated in jails. Compiling the perspectives of stakeholders inside and outside of jail settings on the opt-out approach to vaccination is the first step to develop feasible and effective strategies for implementing new health policies in jail settings.

NAVIGATE: improving survival in vulnerable patients with lung cancer through nurse navigation, symptom monitoring and exercise - study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Low socioeconomic position (SEP) has been shown to be strongly associated with impaired lung cancer survival. Barriers related to receiving recommended treatment among patients with lung cancer with low SEP may include adverse health behaviour and limited physical and psychosocial resources influencing the ability to react on high-risk symptoms and to navigate the healthcare system. To address the underlying factors that drive both decisions of treatment, adherence to treatment and follow-up in vulnerable patients with lung cancer, we developed the Navigate intervention. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effect of the intervention on survival (primary outcome), lung cancer treatment adherence, health-related quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes as well as health costs and process evaluation (secondary outcomes) in a study population of vulnerable patients with lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-armed multicentre randomised trial will recruit patients from five lung cancer clinics in Denmark identified as vulnerable according to a screening instrument with nine clinical and patient-reported vulnerability criteria developed for the study. We will enrol 518 vulnerable patients >18 years old diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at all stages with a performance status <2. Participants will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment and intervention or standard treatment alone. The Navigate intervention is based on principles from motivational interviewing and includes three components of nurse navigation, systematic monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical exercise in a person-centred delivery model. Data will be collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12 months after randomisation using questionnaires, clinical data and physical function tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics Committee, Region Zealand (SJ-884/EMN-2020-37380) and the Data Protection Agency in Region Zealand (REG-080-2021) approved the trial. Participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05053997.

Parent Perspectives on Screening for Social Needs During Pediatric Hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants of health have been demonstrated to be important drivers of health outcomes and disparities. Screening for social needs has been routinely performed and shown to be beneficial in ambulatory settings, but little is known regarding parent perspectives on screening during pediatric hospitalizations. This study sought to determine parental attitudes surrounding inpatient screening and screening process preferences in the hospital setting. METHODS: We conducted 17 semistructured interviews with English- and Spanish-speaking parents of hospitalized children at 1 tertiary and 2 community hospitals between July 2020 and February 2021, with questions probing opinions and experiences with social needs screening, comfort level with discussing social needs with hospital providers, and screening process preferences in the hospital setting. Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Participants were median age 32 years, with majority female and English-speaking, and nearly one-half with children admitted to a community hospital. Emergent themes included (1) importance of screening for social needs across multiple health care settings, (2) hospitals viewed as capable systems to respond to social needs, (3) most parents comfortable discussing social needs with inpatient providers, (4) appreciation for providers expressing caring and desire to help during inpatient screening, and (5) importance of a family-centered approach to inpatient screening. CONCLUSIONS: Parents reported positive perceptions regarding pediatric inpatient social needs screening importance and hospitals' ability to address social needs and identified multiple screening process preferences for the hospital setting that can inform the development of family-centered inpatient social needs screening strategies.

Development of a workflow process mapping protocol to inform the implementation of regional patient navigation programs in breast oncology.

BACKGROUND: Implementing city-wide patient navigation processes that support patients across the continuum of cancer care is impeded by a lack of standardized tools to integrate workflows and reduce gaps in care. The authors present an actionable workflow process mapping protocol for navigation process planning and improvement based on methods developed for the Translating Research Into Practice study. METHODS: Key stakeholders at each study site were identified through existing community partnerships, and data on each site's navigation processes were collected using mixed methods through a series of team meetings. The authors used Health Quality Ontario's Quality Improvement Guide, service design principles, and key stakeholder input to map the collected data onto a template structured according to the case-management model. RESULTS: Data collection and process mapping exercises resulted in a 10-step protocol that includes: 1) workflow mapping procedures to guide data collection on the series of activities performed by health care personnel that comprise a patient's navigation experience, 2) a site survey to assess program characteristics, 3) a semistructured interview guide to assess care coordination workflows, 4) a site-level swim lane workflow process mapping template, and 5) a regional high-level process mapping template to aggregate data from multiple site-level process maps. CONCLUSIONS: This iterative, participatory approach to data collection and process mapping can be used by improvement teams to streamline care coordination, ultimately improving the design and delivery of an evidence-based navigation model that spans multiple treatment modalities and multiple health systems in a metropolitan area. This protocol is presented as an actionable toolkit so the work may be replicated to support other quality-improvement initiatives and efforts to design truly patient-centered breast cancer treatment experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Evidence-based patient navigation in breast cancer care requires the integration of services through each phase of cancer treatment. The Translating Research Into Practice study aims to implement patient navigation for patients with breast cancer who are at risk for delays and are seeking care across 6 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts. The authors designed a 10-step protocol outlining procedures and tools that support a systematic assessment for health systems that want to implement breast cancer patient navigation services for patients who are at risk for treatment delays.

Clinical integration of patient-reported outcome measures to enhance the care of patients with SLE: a multi-centre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and impact of integrating electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into the routine outpatient care of patients with SLE. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study, utilizing a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, of SLE outpatients receiving rheumatology care at two academic medical centres. Participants completed electronic PROMs at enrolment and then prior to their next two routine rheumatology visits. PROM score reports were shared with patients and rheumatologists before visits. Patients and rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys evaluating the utility of PROMs in the clinical encounters. Focus groups of patients and interviews with treating rheumatologists were conducted to further explore their experience utilizing PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 105 SLE patients and 17 rheumatologists participated in the study. Patients completed PROMs in 159 of 184 encounters (86%), with 93% of surveys completed remotely. Patients reported that PROMs were 'quite a bit' or 'very' useful (55% of encounters) and beneficial to communication (55% of encounters). In contrast, physicians found PROMs useful (20%) and beneficial to communication (17%) less frequently. There was no significant change in visit length, health-related quality of life or disease activity after implementation of PROMs; however, patient satisfaction improved slightly. Qualitative analyses revealed that patients felt PROMs provided utility primarily by facilitating communication, particularly when physicians discussed the surveys. CONCLUSION: The remote capture and integration of electronic PROMs into clinical care was feasible in a diverse cohort of SLE outpatients. PROMs were useful to patients and enhanced their clinical experience primarily by facilitating communication.

Diabetes Control During Massachusetts Insurance Reform.

Racial/ethnic disparities in glycemic control-a key diabetes outcome measure-continue to widen, even though the overall prevalence of glycemic control in the US has improved. Health insurance coverage may be associated with improved glycemic control, but few studies examine effects during a period of policy change. We assessed changes in glycemic control by racial/ethnic groups following the Massachusetts Health Insurance Reform for patients at two urban safety-net academic health systems between January 2005 and December 2013. We analyzed outcomes for three measures of poor glycemic control: 1) lack of a hemoglobin A1C (A1C) measure during a 6-month period; 2) A1C >8%; 3) A1C >9% before, during, and after implementation of insurance reform. We did not find increased rates of A1C monitoring or control following insurance reform overall or for specific racial/ethnic groups. We found evidence of worsened, not improved, glycemic control in some racial/ethnic groups in the post-reform period. The expansion of affordable insurance coverage was not associated with improved glycemic control in vulnerable populations.

Clinical Stakeholder Perspectives on Pediatric Inpatient Screening for Social Needs.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants of health are major drivers of health outcomes and quality of life. While several social needs screening tools have been created for use in primary care settings, the best procedures to incorporate these tools into hospital workflow remain unclear. This study aimed to elicit clinical stakeholder perspectives on proposed screening for social needs during pediatric hospitalizations, with particular focus on informing implementation strategies. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with pediatric clinical stakeholders (physicians, nurses, social workers, and case managers) at 1 tertiary and 2 community hospitals between July 2020 and January 2021, on topics including social needs screening practices, benefits and challenges to inpatient screening, and optimal screening and referral processes within hospital workflow. Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Participants ranged in age from 25 to 62 years, with nearly half working in community hospitals. Regarding inpatient social needs screening, themes emerged about benefits, including enabling clinicians to identify vulnerable patients/moments, and providing clinicians with comprehensive understanding of social context; barriers, including prioritization of medical needs, lack of clinician education surrounding screening, and lack of pre-established relationships; facilitators, including duration of time spent with families, and multidisciplinary clinicians; screening process preferences, including verbal screening, and integration into pre-existing systems; and referral process preferences, including resource provision with family empowerment, and care transition to outpatient clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical stakeholders identified multiple barriers, facilitators, and process preferences for pediatric inpatient social needs screening, which may inform the future development of feasible and sustainable implementation strategies.

Assessment of patient navigation programs for breast cancer patients across the city of Boston.

PURPOSE: Healthcare systems contribute to disparities in breast cancer outcomes. Patient navigation is a widely cited system-based approach to improve outcomes among populations at risk for delays in care. Patient navigation programs exist in all major Boston hospitals, yet disparities in outcomes persist. The objective of this study was to conduct a baseline assessment of navigation processes at six Boston hospitals that provide breast cancer care in preparation for an implementation trial of standardized navigation across the city. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study in six hospitals that provide treatment to breast cancer patients in Boston. We administered a web-based survey to clinical champions (n = 7) across six sites to collect information about the structure of navigation programs. We then conducted in-person workflow assessments at each site using a semi-structured interview guide to understand site-specific implementation processes for patient navigation programs. The target population included administrators, supervisors, and patient navigators who provided breast cancer treatment-focused care. RESULTS: All sites offered patient navigation services to their patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. We identified wide heterogeneity in terms of how programs were funded/resourced, which patients were targeted for navigation, the type of services provided, and the continuity of those services relative to the patient's cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalization of patient navigation varies widely across hospitals especially in relation to three core principles in patient navigation: providing patient support across the care continuum, targeting services to those patients most likely to experience delays in care, and systematically screening for and addressing patients' health-related social needs. Gaps in navigation across the care continuum present opportunities for intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433, 5/2/2018.

"I'm not gonna be able to do anything about it, then what's the point?": A broad group of stakeholders identify barriers and facilitators to HCV testing in a Massachusetts jail.

BACKGROUND: Despite national guidelines promoting hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing in prisons, there is substantial heterogeneity on the implementation of HCV testing in jails. We sought to better understand barriers and opportunities for HCV testing by interviewing a broad group of stakeholders involved in HCV testing and treatment policies and procedures in Massachusetts jails. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with people incarcerated in Middlesex County Jail (North Billerica, MA), clinicians working in jail and community settings, corrections administrators, and representatives from public health, government, and industry between November 2018-April 2019. RESULTS: 51/120 (42%) of people agreed to be interviewed including 21 incarcerated men (mean age 32 [IQR 25, 39], 60% non-White). Themes that emerged from these interviews included gaps in knowledge about HCV testing and treatment opportunities in jail, the impact of captivity and transience, and interest in improving linkage to HCV care after release. Many stakeholders discussed stigma around HCV infection as a factor in reluctance to provide HCV testing or treatment in the jail setting. Some stakeholders expressed that stigma often led decisionmakers to estimate a lower "worth" of incarcerated individuals living with HCV and therefore to decide against paying for HCV testing.". CONCLUSION: All stakeholders agreed that HCV in the jail setting is a public health issue that needs to be addressed. Exploring stakeholders' many ideas about how HCV testing and treatment can be approached is the first step in developing feasible and acceptable strategies.

The Influence of Health Insurance Stability on Racial/Ethnic Differences in Diabetes Control and Management.

Objective: This study examined whether health insurance stability was associated with improved type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) control and reduced racial/ethnic health disparities. Methods: We utilized electronic medical record data (2005-2013) from two large, urban academic health systems with a racially/ethnically diverse patient population to examine insurance coverage, and three DM outcomes (poor diabetes control, A1c ≥8.0%; very poor diabetes control A1c >9.0%; and poor BP control, ≥ 130/80 mm Hg) and one DM management outcome (A1c monitoring). We used generalized estimating equations adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, site of care, education, and income. Additional analysis examined if insurance stability (stable public or private insurance over the six-month internal) moderates the impact of race/ethnicity on DM outcomes. Results: Nearly 50% of non-Hispanic (NH) Whites had private insurance coverage, compared with 33.5% of NH Blacks, 31.5% of Asians, and 31.1% of Hispanics. Overall, and within most racial/ ethnic groups, insurance stability was associated with better glycemic control compared with those with insurance switches or always being uninsured, with uninsured NH Blacks having significantly worse BP control. More NH Black and Hispanic patients had poorly controlled (A1c≥8%) and very poorly controlled (A1c>9%) diabetes across all insurance stability types than NH Whites or Asians. The interaction between insurance instability and race/ethnic groups was statistically significant for A1c monitoring and BP control, but not for glycemic control. Conclusion: Stable insurance coverage was associated with improved DM outcomes for all racial / ethnic groups, but did not eliminate racial ethnic disparities.

"Unspoken Questions": A Qualitative Study of Rheumatologists' Perspectives on the Clinical Implementation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To identify rheumatologists' views on perceived barriers and facilitators to the clinical implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with academically affiliated clinical rheumatologists. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Deidentified transcripts were independently coded and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Fifteen attending rheumatologists, 8 women (53%) and 7 men (47%) with a mean of 17.3 years in practice (range 5-43) at 2 urban academic medical centers, participated in interviews. Rheumatologists identified several barriers to integrating PROM in clinical care, highlighting physician buy-in and culture change as significant challenges beyond logistical considerations. They further underscored the lack of effective interventions and resources for addressing the domains of most interest to patients. Physicians also recognized significant benefits of PROM in clinical care, including contributing to the clinical impression by providing the patient perspective, and promoting agenda setting by uncovering "unspoken questions." They additionally noted that PROM could support treatment planning, build patient-physician relationships, and facilitate patient engagement. Participants suggested that technology, physician education, and team-based care could facilitate the effective implementation of PROM. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists identified multiple mechanisms through which PROM could augment clinical care, but also noted several obstacles to implementation, questioning the added value of PROM and the limited availability of interventions to improve patient-centered outcomes. Programs seeking to successfully integrate PROM to enhance patient-centered care and meet quality benchmarks should prioritize physician buy-in and training, and provide resources to address the outcomes that are measured.

Facilitating stakeholder engagement in early stage translational research.

INTRODUCTION: Stakeholder engagement can play an important role in increasing public trust and the understanding of scientific research and its impact. Frameworks for stakeholder identification exist, but these frameworks may not apply well to basic science and early stage translational research. METHODS: Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs led six focus groups and two semi-structured interviews using a semi-structured discussion guide to learn from basic science researchers about stakeholder engagement in their work. The 24 participants represented fourteen clinical and academic disciplines. RESULTS: Early stage translational researchers reported engagement with a broad array of stakeholders. Those whose research has a clinical focus reported working with a more diverse range of stakeholders than those whose work did not. Common barriers to stakeholder engagement were grouped into three major themes: a poor definition of concepts, absence of guidance, and limited resources. DISCUSSION: The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the consortium of CTSAs, and the individual CTSA "hubs" are three actors that can help early stage translational researchers develop shared terms of reference, build the necessary skills, and assemble the appropriate resources for engaging stakeholders in Clinical and Translational Research. Getting this right will involve a coordinated push by all three entities.

Screening for Immigration-Related Health Concerns in a Federally Qualified Health Center Serving a Diverse Latinx Community: A Mixed Methods Study.

Immigration-related concerns can impact health and are an important consideration while caring for a multinational Latinx immigrant community. Patients and caregivers waiting for a non-urgent clinic appointment were randomly screened with one of two social risk screening tools. One tool included a question about "any health or stability concerns related to immigration status." The other tool did not include an immigration health question. Immediately following, respondents were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview regarding their social risk screening experience. 201 screens were completed, and 20 patients agreed to an interview. There were no significant sociodemographic differences between groups. Of those screened for immigration, 11% reported a concern. In both arms, interviewees felt that social risk screening was acceptable in a clinic setting. Questions about immigration are timely, important, and relevant, and can be considered when implementing social assessments in communities where there are high levels of trust in providers.