Examining How Social Risk Factors Are Integrated Into Clinical Settings Using Existing Data: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Integrating social care into clinical care requires substantial resources. Use of existing data through a geographic information system (GIS) has the potential to support efficient and effective integration of social care into clinical settings. We conducted a scoping literature review characterizing its use in primary care settings to identify and address social risk factors. METHODS: In December 2018, we searched 2 databases and extracted structured data for eligible articles that (1) described the use of GIS in clinical settings to identify and/or intervene on social risks, (2) were published between December 2013 and December 2018, and (3) were based in the United States. Additional studies were identified by examining references. RESULTS: Of the 5,574 articles included for review, 18 met study eligibility criteria: 14 (78%) were descriptive studies, 3 (17%) tested an intervention, and 1 (6%) was a theoretical report. All studies used GIS to identify social risks (increase awareness); 3 studies (17%) described interventions to address social risks, primarily by identifying relevant community resources and aligning clinical services to patients' needs. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies describe associations between GIS and population health outcomes; however, there is a paucity of literature regarding GIS use to identify and address social risk factors in clinical settings. GIS technology may assist health systems seeking to address population health outcomes through alignment and advocacy; its current application in clinical care delivery is infrequent and largely limited to referring patients to local community resources.

Identifying and addressing social determinants of health in outpatient practice: results of a program-wide survey of internal and family medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Up to 60% of preventable mortality is attributable to social determinants of health (SDOH), yet training on SDOH competencies is not widely implemented in residency. The objective of this study was to assess internal and family medicine residents' competence at identifying and addressing SDOH. METHODS: Residents' perceived competence at identifying, discussing, and addressing SDOH in outpatient settings was assessed using a single questionnaire administered in March 2017. In this cross-sectional analysis, bivariate associations of resident characteristics with the following outcomes were examined: identifying, discussing, and addressing patients' challenges related to SDOH through referrals. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 129 (84%) residents. Twenty residents (16%) reported an annual income of less than $50,000 during childhood. Overall, 108 residents (84%) reported previous SDOH training. Two-thirds had outpatient practices in Veterans Affairs or safety-net clinics. Thirty-nine (30%) intended to pursue a career in primary care. The following numbers of residents reported high levels of competence for performing these outcomes: identifying patients' challenges related to SDOH: 37 (29%); discussing them with patients: 18 (14%); and addressing these challenges through referrals to internal and external resources: 13 (10%) and 11 (9%), respectively. Factors associated with higher competence included older age, lower childhood household income, prior education about SDOH, primary practice site and intention to practice primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Most residents had previous SDOH training, yet only a small proportion of residents reported being highly competent at identifying or addressing SDOH. Providing opportunities for practical training may be a key component in preparing medical residents to identify and address SDOH effectively in outpatient practice.

Social Determinants of Health in Family Medicine Residency: A National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Social factors account for most health outcomes, underscoring the need to address social determinants of health (SDH) to eliminate health disparities. Our objectives are (1) to describe the scope of formal SDH curricula in family medicine residency, (2) to identify residency program characteristics associated with integrated core curriculum components to teach SDH, and (3) to identify barriers to addressing SDH in residency. METHODS: We distributed a cross-sectional survey to all family medicine residency program directors (PDs) accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as identified by the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors. RESULTS: Of 624 eligible program directors, 279 completed the survey (45% response rate). Overall, 41.2% of respondents reported significant formal SDH training in their program. Though a majority (93.9%) agreed that screening for social needs should be a standard of care, most (58.9%) did not use standardized screening tools. The most common barriers to addressing SDH were lack of clinical resources (eg, social workers, legal advocates), lack of community resources (eg, food banks, substance use disorder treatment), and inadequate screening instruments or integration into the electronic medical record system. Availability of referral resources was associated with PDs' increased perception of resident SDH competency. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all respondents agreed that screening for social needs should be a standard part of care; however, this vision is not yet realized. To better train the next generation of physicians to identify and meaningfully address social needs, additional research is needed. This research might include mixed-methods approaches that incorporate qualitative assessments to define best practices and patient-centered outcomes related to identifying and responding to SDH.

Evaluation of Family Medicine Residency Programs for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Milestones.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2020, the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) Diversity and Health Equity (DHE) Task Force developed and piloted a framework to measure diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in medical residencies across five domains: curriculum, evaluation, institution, resident pathway, and faculty pathway. The objectives were (1) to measure DEI initiatives across multiple domains in family medicine residencies using the DEI milestones and (2) to obtain current national baseline data providing criteria against which to measure effectiveness of initiatives and create tailored benchmarks. METHODS: We developed a cross-sectional survey of 12 quantitative residency characteristic items and the five DEI milestone ratings, and distributed the survey to program directors of family medicine residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the spring of 2022. We generated descriptive statistics, including item frequencies and cross-tabulations, and completed subgroup comparisons with analysis of variance. RESULTS: We collected aggregate milestone data for 194 family medicine residencies of 588 eligible programs (33% response rate). Respondents represented 48 states and US territories: 107 community-based, university-affiliated; 48 community-based; 34 university-based; and 5 military/other programs. Overall, the curriculum milestone was rated the highest (mean=2.54, SD=1.03), whereas the faculty pathway (mean=1.94, SD=1.04) and resident pathway (mean=2.02, SD=1.06) milestones were rated lowest. CONCLUSIONS: DEI milestone data may support residency programs as they assess their institution's developmental progress across five key domains. Additionally, aggregate data may shed light on collective strengths and areas for improvement.

Diversity, Inclusion, and Health Equity in Academic Family Medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Diversity, inclusion, and health equity (DIHE) are integral to the practice of family medicine. Academic family medicine has been grappling with these issues in recent years, particularly with a focus on racism and health inequity. We studied the current state of DIHE activities in academic family medicine departments and suggest a framework for departments to become more diverse, inclusive, antiracist, and focused on health equity and racial justice. METHODS: As part of a larger annual membership survey, family medicine department chairs were asked for their assessment of departmental DIHE and antioppression activities, and infrastructure and resources committed to increasing DIHE. RESULTS: More than 60% of family medicine department chairs participating in this study rate their departments highly in promoting DIHE and antioppression, and 66% of chairs report an institutional infrastructure that is working well. Just over half of departments or institutions have had a climate survey in the past 3 years, 47.3% of departments have a diversity officer, and 26% of departments provide protected time or resources for a diversity officer. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of family medicine department chairs rate their departments highly on DIHE. However, only 50% of departments have formally assessed climate in the past 3 years, fewer have diversity officers, and even fewer invest resources in their diversity officers. This disconnect should motivate academic family medicine departments to undertake formal self-assessment and implement a strategic plan that includes resource investment in DIHE, measurable outcomes, and sustainability.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Milestones: Creation of a Tool to Evaluate Graduate Medical Education Programs.

Background: As the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) began to ask programs to report their efforts surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), program directors felt ill prepared to evaluate their programs and measure change. Objective: To develop a tool that would allow graduate medical education (GME) programs to evaluate the current state of DEI within their residencies, identify areas of need, and track progress; to evaluate feasibility of using this assessment method within family medicine training programs; and to analyze and report pilot data from implementation of these milestones within family medicine residency programs. Methods: The Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) Diversity and Health Equity (DHE) Task Force developed a tool for program DEI evaluation modeled after the ACGME Milestones. These milestones focus on DEI assessment in 5 key domains: Institution, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resident Personnel, and Faculty Personnel. After finalizing a draft, a pilot implementation of the milestones was conducted by a convenience sample of 10 AFMRD DHE Task Force members for their own programs. Results: Scores varied widely across surveyed programs for all milestones. Highest average scores were seen for the Curriculum milestone (2.65) and the lowest for the Faculty Personnel milestone (2.0). Milestone assessments were completed within 10 to 40 minutes using various methods. Conclusions: The AFMRD DEI Milestones were developed for program assessment, goal setting, and tracking of progress related to DEI within residency programs. The pilot implementation showed these milestones were easily used by family medicine faculty members in diverse settings.

Developing Equity Report Cards for Residents Training in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Most residency programs do not provide trainees with health equity data for their clinic patients. METHODS: Equity report cards were developed for internal and family medicine residents in a large health system. After considering which equity indictors were available, how to attribute patients to residents, and what level of granularity was feasible, equity reports were created for five ambulatory quality measures. Chi-square tests were used to test the significance of differences in quality measure satisfaction between groups. RESULTS: Attributing patients to the physician who had seen them for the greatest proportion of encounters performed best. Creating equity reports for individual resident panels was not possible due to insufficient numbers. Most measures had sufficient patients when combining all residents' patients. Inequities were identified for four of five examined measures. CONCLUSION: Creating aggregate equity reports for all primary care residents across multiple equity indicators was feasible, documenting disparities in health care quality.

Who, What, and Where: Transforming Primary Care Education to Advance Health Equity.

To transform primary care with the goal of achieving health equity, changes in the way the health care workforce is selected, trained, and ultimately delivers care should be expedited. Research has repeatedly shown the immense impact of the social determinants of health and the gaps related to health equity in the United States. Despite this knowledge, health care education and delivery systems have been slow to evolve. The Health Resources and Services Administration established the Academic Units for Primary Care Training and Enhancement to work towards strengthening the primary care workforce. Through their research, the six individual Academic Units (AU) have identified gaps related to health equity in their areas of focus. This article provides recommendations from the AUs on ways primary care health professions education can be transformed to advance health equity and serves as background for the articles to follow in the remainder of the supplement.

Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health in the Primary Care Clinical Training Environment: A Survey of the Landscape.

INTRODUCTION: This study surveyed the use of systematic strategies to address social determinants of health in the primary care clinical training environment. METHODS: We designed a 51-item questionnaire targeting medical educators from internal medicine, pediatrics, and family practice to assess strategies to identify and mitigate social needs, the role of trainees in this process, and barriers/facilitators to systematic approaches. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 104 medical educators from 77 institutions. Of the 104 respondents, 28% were not familiar with any standardized tools used for screening for social needs, 27% use geospatial (GIS) or geographic information system (GIG) data, and 35% reported that trainees were not involved in any part of assisting. CONCLUSION: Nearly one third of medical educators lack familiarity with standardized screening tools for social needs. More than one third reported that trainees are not involved with mitigating social needs. Geospatial and GIS data are not utilized frequently.

Social Determinants of Health Training in U.S. Primary Care Residency Programs: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Medical training has traditionally focused on the proximate determinants of disease, with little focus on how social conditions influence health. The authors conducted a scoping review of existing curricula to understand the current programs designed to teach primary care residents about the social determinants of health (SDH). METHOD: In January and March 2017, the authors searched seven databases. Eligible articles focused on primary care residents, described a curriculum related to SDH, were published between January 2007 and January 2017, and were based in the United States. RESULTS: Of the initial 5,523 articles identified, 43 met study eligibility criteria. Most programs (29; 67%) were in internal medicine. Sixteen studies (37%) described the curriculum development process. Overall, 20 programs (47%) were short or one-time sessions, and 15 (35%) were longitudinal programs lasting at least 6 months. Thirty-two programs (74%) reported teaching SDH content using didactics, 22 (51%) incorporated experiential learning, and many programs (n = 38; 88%) employed both. Most studies reported satisfaction and/or self-perceived changes in knowledge or attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified wide variation in curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation. They highlight curricula that considered community and resident needs, used conceptual frameworks or engaged multiple stakeholders to select content, used multiple delivery methods, and focused evaluation on changes in skills or behaviors. This review highlights the need not only for systematic, standardized approaches to developing and delivering SDH curricula but also for developing rigorous evaluation of the curricula, particularly effects on resident behavior.