Explore the vast range of titles available.

The emergency department (ED) is an opportune venue to screen for unmet social needs and connect patients with social services. This quality improvement study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data to examine unmet social needs among ED patients and program implementation. From September 2020 to December 2021, an urban safety‐net hospital adult ED implemented a social needs screening and referral program. Trained emergency staff screened eligible patients for 5 social needs (housing, food, transportation, utilities, employment), giving resource guides to patients who screened positive (THRIVE+). We collected screening data from the electronic health record, conducted semi‐structured interviews with THRIVE+ patients and clinical staff, and directly observed discharge interactions. Emergency staff screened 58.5% of eligible patients for social risk. Of the screened patients, 27.0% reported at least 1 unmet social need. Of those, 74.8% requested assistance. Screened patients reported housing insecurity (16.3%) as the most prevalent unmet social need followed by food insecurity (13.3%) and unemployment (8.7%). Among interviewed patients, 57.1% recalled being screened, but only 24.5% recalled receiving resource guides. Patients who received guides reported little success connecting with resources and supported universal guide dissemination. Staff expressed preference for warm handoff to social services. Of 13 observed discharge interactions, clinical staff only discussed guides with 2 patients, with no positive endorsement of the guides in any observed interactions. An ED social needs screening program can be moderately feasible and accepted. We identified housing as the most prevalent need. Significant gaps exist between screening and referral, with few patients receiving resources. Further training and workflow optimization are underway.

Objective The patient–provider relationship is critical for achieving high-quality care and better health outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care practices rapidly transitioned to telehealth. While telehealth provided critical access to services for many, not all patients could optimally utilize it, raising concerns about its potential to exacerbate inequities in patient–provider relationships. We investigated technical and workforce-related barriers to accessing telehealth and the impacts on patient–provider relationships for vulnerable populations. Methods Qualitative, semi-structured interviews from May 2021 to August 2021 with 31 individuals (medical directors, physicians, and medical assistants) working at 20 primary care practices in Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Texas. Thematic analysis to better understand how barriers to using telehealth complicated patient–provider relationships. Results Interviewees shared challenges for providers and patients that had a negative effect on patient–provider relationships, particularly for vulnerable patients, including older adults, lower socio-economic status patients, and those with limited English proficiency. Providers faced logistical challenges and disruptions in team-based care, reducing care coordination. Patients experienced technological challenges that made accessing and engaging in telehealth difficult. Interviewees shared challenges for patient–provider relationships as commonly used telephone-only telehealth reduced channels for non-verbal communication. Conclusion This study indicates that barriers to virtual interaction with patients compared to in-person care likely led to weaker personal relationships that may have longer-term effects on engagement with and trust in the healthcare system, particularly among vulnerable patient groups. Additional support and resources should be available to primary care providers to optimize telehealth utilization.

Background. During the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, antiviral prescribing was limited, vaccines were not available early, and the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) was uncertain. Our study examined whether use of face masks and hand hygiene reduced the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI). Methods. A randomized intervention trial involving 1437 young adults living in university residence halls during the 2006–2007 influenza season was designed. Residence halls were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups—face mask use, face masks with hand hygiene, or control— for 6 weeks. Generalized models estimated rate ratios for clinically diagnosed or survey-reported ILI weekly and cumulatively. Results. We observed significant reductions in ILI during weeks 4–6 in the mask and hand hygiene group, compared with the control group, ranging from 35% (confidence interval [CI], 9%–53%) to 51% (CI, 13%–73%), after adjusting for vaccination and other covariates. Face mask use alone showed a similar reduction in ILI compared with the control group, but adjusted estimates were not statistically significant. Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively. Conclusions. These findings suggest that face masks and hand hygiene may reduce respiratory illnesses in shared living settings and mitigate the impact of the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. Trial Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00490633.

Despite interest in addressing social determinants of health to improve patient outcomes, little progress has been made in integrating social services with medical care. We aimed to understand how health care providers with strong motivation (for example, operating under new payment models) and commitment (for example, early adopters) fared at addressing patients' social needs. We collected qualitative data from twenty-two accountable care organizations (ACOs). These ACOs were early adopters and were working on initiatives to address social needs, including such common needs as transportation, housing, and food. However, even these ACOs faced significant difficulties in integrating social services with medical care. First, the ACOs were frequently \"flying blind,\" lacking data on both their patients' social needs and the capabilities of potential community partners. Additionally, partnerships between ACOs and community-based organizations were critical but were only in the early stages of development. Innovation was constrained by ACOs' difficulties in determining how best to approach return on investment, given shorter funding cycles and longer time horizons to see returns on social determinants investments. Policies that could facilitate the integration of social determinants include providing sustainable funding, implementing local and regional networking initiatives to facilitate partnership development, and developing standardized data on community-based organizations' services and quality to aid providers that seek partners.

Introduction Early access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration. Methods Mixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites’ palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices. Results Sites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of “favorable” organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care. Conclusion Integration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Social needs, including food, housing, utilities, transportation, and experience with interpersonal violence, are linked to health outcomes. Identifying patients with unmet social needs is a necessary first step to addressing these needs, yet little is known about the prevalence of screening. To characterize screening for social needs by physician practices and hospitals. Cross-sectional survey analyses of responses by physician practices and hospitals to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems. Responses were collected from survey participants from June 16, 2017, to August 17, 2018. Organizational characteristics, including participation in delivery and payment reform. Self-report of screening patients for food insecurity, housing instability, utility needs, transportation needs, and experience with interpersonal violence. Among 4976 physician practices, 2333 responded, a response rate of 46.9%. Among hospitals, 757 of 1628 (46.5%) responded. After eliminating responses because of ineligibility, 2190 physician practices and 739 hospitals remained. Screening for all 5 social needs was reported by 24.4% (95% CI, 20.0%-28.7%) of hospitals and 15.6% (95% CI, 13.4%-17.9%) of practices, whereas 33.3% (95% CI, 30.5%-36.2%) of practices and 8.0% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.0%) of hospitals reported no screening. Screening for interpersonal violence was most common (practices: 56.4%; 95% CI, 53.3%-2 59.4%; hospitals: 75.0%; 95% CI, 70.1%-79.3%), and screening for utility needs was least common (practices: 23.1%; 95% CI, 20.6%-26.0%; hospitals: 35.5%; 95% CI, 30.0%-41.0%) among both hospitals and practices. Among practices, federally qualified health centers (yes: 29.7%; 95% CI, 21.5%-37.8% vs no: 9.4%; 95% CI, 7.2%-11.6%; P < .001), bundled payment participants (yes: 21.4%; 95% CI, 17.1%-25.8% vs no: 10.7%; 95% CI, 7.9%-13.4%; P < .001), primary care improvement models (yes: 19.6%; 95% CI, 16.5%-22.6% vs no: 9.6%; 95% CI, 6.0%-13.1%; P < .001), and Medicaid accountable care organizations (yes: 21.8%; 95% CI, 17.4%-26.2% vs no: 11.2%; 95% CI, 8.6%-13.7%; P < .001) had higher rates of screening for all needs. Practices in Medicaid expansion states (yes: 17.7%; 95% CI, 14.8%-20.7% vs no: 11.4%; 95% CI, 8.1%-14.6%; P = .007) and those with more Medicaid revenue (highest tertile: 17.1%; 95% CI, 11.4%-22.7% vs lowest tertile: 9.0%; 95% CI, 6.1%-11.8%; P = .02) were more likely to screen. Academic medical centers were more likely than other hospitals to screen (49.5%; 95% CI, 34.6%-64.4% vs 23.0%; 95% CI, 18.5%-27.5%; P < .001). This study's findings suggest that few US physician practices and hospitals screen patients for all 5 key social needs associated with health outcomes. Practices that serve disadvantaged patients report higher screening rates. The role of physicians and hospitals in meeting patients' social needs is likely to increase as more take on accountability for cost under payment reform. Physicians and hospitals may need additional resources to screen for or address patients' social needs.

BackgroundConcerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.ObjectiveTo assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients.DesignWe analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017–2018.ParticipantsA total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians.Main MeasuresOur key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not.Key ResultsFQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001).ConclusionFQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

Background A critical barrier to improving the quality of end-of-life (EOL) cancer care is our lack of understanding of the mechanisms underlying variation in EOL treatment intensity. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying 1) organizational and provider practice norms at major US cancer centers, and 2) how these norms influence provider decision making heuristics and patient expectations for EOL care, particularly for minority patients with advanced cancer. Methods This is a multi-center, qualitative case study at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Centers. We will theoretically sample centers based upon National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsed EOL quality metrics and demographics to ensure heterogeneity in EOL intensity and region. A multidisciplinary team of clinician and non-clinician researchers will conduct direct observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection. Participants will include: 1) cancer center and clinical service line administrators; 2) providers from medical, surgical, and radiation oncology; palliative or supportive care; intensive care; hospital medicine; and emergency medicine who see patients with cancer and have high clinical practice volume or high local influence (provider interviews and observations); and 3) adult patients with metastatic solid tumors and whom the provider would not be surprised if they died in the next 12 months and their caregivers (patient and caregiver interviews). Leadership interviews will probe about EOL institutional norms and organization. We will observe inpatient and outpatient care for two weeks. Provider interviews will use vignettes to probe explicit and implicit motivations for treatment choices. Semi-structured interviews with patients near EOL, or their family members and caregivers will explore past, current, and future decisions related to their cancer care. We will import transcribed field notes and interviews into Dedoose software for qualitative data management and analysis, and we will develop and apply a deductive and inductive codebook to the data. Discussion This study aims to improve our understanding of organizational and provider practice norms pertinent to EOL care in U.S. cancer centers. This research will ultimately be used to inform a provider-oriented intervention to improve EOL care for racial and ethnic minority patients with advanced cancer. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03780816 ; December 19, 2018.

Primary care access for Medicaid patients is an ongoing area of concern. Most studies of providers' participation in Medicaid have focused on factors associated with the Medicaid program, such as reimbursement rates. Few studies have examined the characteristics of primary care practices associated with Medicaid participation. We used a nationally representative survey of primary care practices to compare practices with no, low, and high Medicaid revenue. Seventeen percent of practices received no Medicaid revenue; 38 percent and 45 percent were categorized as receiving low and high Medicaid revenue, respectively. Practices with no Medicaid revenue were more often small, independent, and located in urban areas with higher household income. These practices also have lower population health capabilities.

Background Advance Care Planning (ACP) comprises an iterative communication process aimed at understanding patients’ goals, values, and preferences in the context of considering and preparing for future medical treatments and decision making in serious illness. The COVID pandemic heightened patients’ and clinicians’ awareness of the need for ACP. Objective Our goal was to explore the experiences of clinicians and administrators in the context of an intervention to improve ACP during the COVID pandemic. Design Qualitative interview study. Participants Clinicians and administrators across five sites that participated in the ACP-COVID trial. Approach We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews examining the context and approach to ACP. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis to systematically organize the data and facilitate review across the categories and participants. Templates were developed with iterative input and line-by-line review by the analytic team, to reach consensus. Findings were then organized into emergent themes. Key Results Across 20 interviews (4 administrators, 16 clinicians) we identified three themes related to how participants thought about ACP: (1) clinicians have varying views of what constitutes ACP; (2) the health system critically shapes ACP culture and norms; and (3) the centrality of clinicians’ affective experience and own needs related to ACP. Varying approaches to ACP include a forms-focused approach; a discussion-based approach; and a parental approach. System features that shape ACP norms are (1) the primacy of clinician productivity measures; (2) the role of the EHR; and (3) the culture of quality improvement. Conclusions Despite high organizational commitment to ACP, we found that the health system channeled clinicians’ ACP efforts narrowly on completion of forms, in tension with the ideal of well-grounded ACP. This resulted in a state of moral distress that risks undermining confidence in the process of ACP and may increase risk of harm for patients, family/caregivers, and providers. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.