Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Implementing Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Screening in Los Angeles County Pediatric Clinics.

PURPOSE: To understand clinician and clinical staff perspectives on the implementation of routine Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) screening in pediatric primary care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation in 5 clinics in Los Angeles County, California, using 2 rounds of focus group discussions: during an early phase of the initiative, and 7 months later. In the first round, we conducted 14 focus group discussions with 67 participants. In the second round, we conducted 12 focus group discussions with 58 participants. Participants comprised clinic staff involved in ACE screening, including frontline staff that administer the screening, medical clinicians that use screening to counsel patients and make referrals, and psychosocial support staff who may receive referrals. RESULTS: Themes were grouped into 3 categories: (1) screening acceptability and perceived utility, (2) implementation and quality improvement, and (3) effects of screening on patients and clinicians. Regarding screening acceptability and perceived utility, clinicians generally considered ACE screening to be acceptable and useful. In terms of implementation and quality improvement, significant barriers included: insufficient time for screening and response, insufficient training, and lack of clarity about referral networks and resources that could be offered to patients. Lastly, regarding effects of screening, clinicians expressed that ACE screening helped elicit important patient information and build trust with patients. Further, no adverse events were reported from screening. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic staff felt ACE screening was feasible, acceptable, and beneficial within pediatric care settings to improve trauma-informed care and that ACE screening could be strengthened by addressing time constraints and limited referral resources.

Immigrant and Refugee Health Curricula in US-Based Medical Training: A Scoping Review to Inform Integration Into Pediatric Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increases in the US foreign-born population, medical education opportunities in immigrant and refugee health (IRH) remain limited. We summarize findings for published IRH curricula and offer recommendations for integrating IRH into pediatric residency programs. METHODS: We performed a literature review of articles describing the design, implementation, or assessment of IRH curricula for US-based undergraduate and graduate medical trainees. RESULTS: The literature review identified 36 articles from 21 institutions describing 37 unique curricula. Three curricula included pediatric residency programs. Commonly taught topics included cultural humility, interpreter use, and immigration status as a social determinant of health. Immigrant-focused training experiences existed at continuity clinics, clinics for refugees or asylum seekers, and dedicated electives/rotations. Curricula were most frequently described as stand-alone electives/rotations. CONCLUSIONS: IRH curricula provide opportunities to develop skills in clinical care, advocacy, and community partnerships with immigrant populations. Pediatric residency programs should align the IRH curriculum with existing learning priorities, support and hire faculty with expertise in IRH, and partner with community organizations with expertise. Programs can also consider how to best support learners interested in careers focusing on immigrant populations. Further work is needed to establish competencies and validated tools measuring trainee satisfaction and clinical competency for IRH curricula.

Clinician actions in response to Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) screening.

Background and Objective: Adverse Childhood Experiences(ACEs) have a powerful influence on mental health, physical health, and life expectancy. Screening for ACEs and the clinician response to ACEs are critical to addressing the health and well-being of children; however, little is known about the actions clinicians take in response to ACE screening. Therefore, we aimed to examine clinician responses to ACE screening at five California pediatric clinics in a large public health care system. Methods: Patient demographics, indicators of social and behavioral determinants of health (e.g., housing insecurity), the number of ACEs endorsed on a screening instrument, and the actions clinicians took in response to each ACE screen were collected. Data was collected from May to October 2021. These data were used to examine the association between number of ACEs reported and clinician response, controlling for patient demographics and their social and behavioral determinants of health using multiple logistic regression. Results: Five participating pediatric clinics conducted 2,652 ACE screens in six-months. Clinicians documented an action twice as often when ACEs were present, after controlling for patient demographics and their social and behavioral determinants of health (odds ratio(OR) = 2.2, 95 % confidence interval(CI): 1.5-3.3, p-value < 0.0001). Clinicians were three times more likely to record referrals to mental health clinicians, social workers, and community organizations relative to anticipatory guidance when the number of ACEs increased from one to three to four or more (OR=3.2, 95 %CI: 1.6-6.5, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Findings provide early information that ACE screening results are associated with patient care.

Patient and Caregiver Perspectives on Implementation of ACE Screening in Pediatric Care Settings: A Qualitative Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: This qualitative research study explored the perspectives of adolescents, 12 to 19-years-old, and caregivers of children under 12-years-old on the acceptibility of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) screenings in five pediatric clinics. METHOD: A constructivist grounded theory approach was utilized. One-on-one semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 44 adolescents and 95 caregivers of children less than 12 years old. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most participants reported feeling comfortable discussing ACEs with their providers. Some reported that screening helped build trust. Others expressed privacy concerns and did not receive information about the reason for screening. Adolescent patients shared conflicting feelings-of both comfort and discomfort. Caregivers attending to multiple children, foster parents, and monolingual Spanish speakers disclosed unique challenges to ACEs screening. We found no evidence of lasting adverse effects. DISCUSSION: Participants generally found ACEs screenings acceptable. Some adolescents identified benefits from the experience. However, clinics planning to adopt routine ACEs screening should ensure clear messaging on why screening is occurring, anticipate and address privacy concerns, and adopt workflows to discuss screening results.