Designing and Developing a Medical-Legal Partnership to Address Cancer Patients' Health-Harming Legal Needs.

The Georgetown University's Cancer Legal Assistance and Well-being Project launched in 2020 as a medical-legal partnership that works with health care providers at a Washington, D.C. safety-net hospital to treat the health-harming legal needs of historically and intentionally marginalized patients with cancer.

Integration of medical legal services into a hospital-based violence intervention program: A survey and interview-based provider needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: Violent injury among trauma surgery patients is strongly associated with exposure to harmful social determinants of health and negative long-term health outcomes. Medical-legal partnerships in other settings successfully provide patients with legal services to address similar health-harming legal needs and may offer a promising model for the care of violently injured patients. STUDY DESIGN: An electronic survey tool was distributed to clinicians and staff affiliated with the hospital-based violence intervention program at a single urban level one trauma center. Semistructured follow-up interviews were conducted with participants, and interviews were coded using thematic analysis and grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants reported many health-harming legal needs among their violently injured patients. The most commonly identified needs were: health insurance denials (62.5%); difficulty accessing crime victims compensation funds (56.3%); trouble accessing official documents (50%); and problems with non-SSDI public benefits (50%). Participants reported inconsistent methods for learning about and responding to patients' health-harming legal needs. The most common barriers to addressing these needs included the following: lack of awareness that a lawyer could help with the issue (68.8%); prioritization of other needs (68.8%); previous negative legal experiences (62.5%); and cost (62.5%). Identified needs encompass issues traditionally addressed by MLPs as well as more novel challenges faced by violent injury survivors. CONCLUSION: This survey and interview-based study identifies complex health-harming legal needs present among violently injured trauma surgery patients. Medical-legal partnerships specially designed for the setting of violent injury appear well-suited to meet these needs, potentially reducing risk of violent reinjury, long-term negative health outcomes, and health care system costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Integrating Lawyers Into Perinatal Care Teams to Address Unmet, Health-Harming Legal Needs.

Across the United States, historically imposed structural, social, and environmental variables are intimately connected to poor obstetric outcomes and high maternal and infant mortality rates among Black pregnancy-capable people. Efforts to diminish the effect of these variables include integrating screening for social determinants of health during the perinatal period and treating them with social services, mental health support, and other referrals, including connections to community-based resources. Although helpful, some of these social determinants cannot be overcome without legal advocacy. Medical-legal partnerships, which integrate lawyers into health care, fill this gap. This commentary by an interprofessional team of authors relies on the experience of an established MLP. We posit that unmet legal needs of perinatal patients merit ongoing monitoring and intervention. We explain the rationale for perinatal practice medical-legal partnerships and share implementation suggestions from a high-intensity safety-net urban hospital.

Law Enforcement and Patient Privacy Among Survivors of Violence: A Nationwide Mixed-Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: During the emergent treatment of violently injured patients, law enforcement (LE) officers and health care providers frequently interact. Both have duties to protect patient health, rights, and public health, however, the balance of these duties may feel at odds. The purpose of this study is to assess hospital-based violence intervention program (HVIP) representatives' experiences with LE officers among survivors of violence and the impact of hospital policies on interactions with LE officers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide survey was distributed to the 35 HVIPs that form the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention. Data regarding respondent affiliation, programs, and perceptions of hospital policies outlining LE activity were collected. Follow-up video interviews were open coded and qualitatively analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: Respondents from 32 HVIPs completed the survey (91%), and 22 interviews (63%) were conducted. Common themes from interviews were: police-patient interactions; racism, bias, and victims' treatment as suspects; and training and education. Only 39% of respondents knew that policies existed and were familiar with them. Most representatives believed their hospitals' existing policies were inadequate, ineffective, or biased. Programs that reported good working relationships with LE officers offered insight on how their programs maintain these partnerships and work with LE officers towards a common goal. CONCLUSIONS: Unclear or inadequate policies relating to LE activity may jeopardize the health and privacy of violently injured patients. Primary areas identified for improvement include clarifying and revising hospital policies, education of staff and LE officers, and improved communication between health care providers and LE officers to better protect patient rights.

INTRODUCTION: Medical-Legal Partnerships: Equity, Evolution, and Evaluation.

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare systemic inequities shaped by social determinants of health (SDoH). Public health agencies, legislators, health systems, and community organizations took notice, and there is currently unprecedented interest in identifying and implementing programs to address SDoH. This special issue focuses on the role of medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) in addressing SDoH and racial and social inequities, as well as the need to support these efforts with evidence-based research, data, and meaningful partnerships and funding.

Leveraging Academic-Medical Legal Partnerships to Advance Health Justice.

Unmet legal needs contribute to housing, income, and food insecurity, along with other conditions that harm health and drive health inequity. Addressing health injustice requires new tools for the next generations of lawyers, doctors, and other healthcare professionals. An interprofessional group of co-authors argue that law and medical schools and other university partners should develop and cultivate Academic Medical-Legal Partnerships (A-MLPs), which are uniquely positioned to leverage service, education, and research resources, to advance health justice.

Co-creating a Legal Check-up in a School-based Health Center Serving Low-income Adolescents.

THE PROBLEM: Marginalized populations experience health-harming legal needs-barriers to good health that require legal advocacy to overcome. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) embed lawyers into the healthcare team to resolve these issues, but identifying patients with health-harming legal needs is complex, and screening practices vary across MLPs.Purpose of Article: Academic and community partners who collaborate in an MLP at a school-based health center (SBHC) share their process of co-creating a two-stage legal check-up for adolescents. KEY POINTS: Screening adolescents for health-harming legal needs is challenging. It took ongoing collaboration to refine the process to fit the needs of adolescents and meet the partners' goals. CONCLUSION: Social determinants of health play a significant role in health disparities, and there is a need for innovative solutions to screen and address these in vulnerable populations. Other partners can learn from our experiences to co-create their own approach to addressing health-harming legal needs.

An Interprofessional Approach to Teaching Advocacy Skills: Lessons from an Academic Medical-Legal Partnership.

Medical students and educators recognize that preparing the next generation of health leaders to address seemingly intractable problems like health disparities should include advocacy training. Opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to effectively advocate at the policy level to promote systems-, community-, and population-level solutions are a critical component of such training. But formal advocacy training programs that develop and measure such skills are scarce. Even less common are interprofessional advocacy training programs that include legal and policy experts to help medical students learn such skills. This 2016-2017 pilot study started with a legislative advocacy training program for preclinical medical students that was designed to prepare them to meet with Capitol Hill representatives about a health justice issue. The pilot assessed the impact of adding an interprofessional education (IPE) dimension to the program, which in this case involved engaging law faculty and students to help the medical students understand and navigate the federal legislative process and prepare for their meetings. Results from the pilot suggest that adding law and policy experts to advocacy-focused training programs can improve medical students' advocacy knowledge and skills and increase their professional identity as advocates.