Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34588265›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Scaling-up social needs screening in practice: a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from electronic health records from Bronx county, New York, USA.

Kevin P Fiori, Caroline G Heller, Anna Flattau, Nicole R Harris-Hollingsworth, Amanda Parsons, Michael L Rinke, Earle Chambers, Sybil Hodgson, Tashi Chodon, Andrew D Racine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kevin P FioriOffice of Community and Population Health, Montefiore Health System, Bronx, New York, USA kfiori@montefiore.org.ORCID 0000-0003-1370-7366
Caroline G HellerOffice of Community and Population Health, Montefiore Health System, Bronx, New York, USA.
Anna FlattauFamily and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Nicole R Harris-HollingsworthFamily and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Amanda ParsonsMetroPlus Health Plan Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Michael L RinkePediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Earle ChambersFamily and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Sybil HodgsonFamily and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Tashi ChodonBronx Community Health Network Inc, Bronx, New York, USA.
Andrew D RacinePediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.

Funding

The Center of Excellence in Promoting LHS Operations and Research at Einstein/Montefiore (EXPLORE)K12HS026396 · AHRQ · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI MARANTZ, PAUL R, RINKE, MICHAEL L · 2018 to 2022
$3.3M
AHRQ HHS K12 HS026396
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere has been renewed focus on health systems integrating social care to improve health outcomes with relatively less related research focusing on 'real-world' practice. This study describes a health system's experience from 2018 to 2020, following the successful pilot in 2017, to scale social needs screening of patients within a large urban primary care ambulatory network.

settingAcademic medical centre with an ambulatory network of 18 primary care practices located in an urban county in New York City (USA).

participantsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study used electronic health records of 244 764 patients who had a clinical visit between 10 April 2018 and 8 December 2019 across any one of 18 primary care practices.

methodsWe organised measures using the RE-AIM framework domains of reach and adoption to ascertain the number of patients who were screened and the number of providers who adopted screening and associated documentation, respectively. We used descriptive statistics to summarise factors comparing patients screened versus those not screened, the prevalence of social needs screening and adoption across 18 practices.

resultsBetween April 2018 and December 2019, 53 093 patients were screened for social needs, representing approximately 21.7% of the patients seen. Almost one-fifth (19.6%) of patients reported at least one unmet social need. The percentage of screened patients varied by both practice location (range 1.6%-81.6%) and specialty within practices. 51.8% of providers (n=1316) screened at least one patient.

conclusionsThese findings demonstrate both the potential and challenges of integrating social care in practice. We observed significant variability in uptake across the health system. More research is needed to better understand factors driving adoption and may include harmonising workflows, establishing unified targets and using data to drive improvement.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMass ScreeningCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNew York CityRetrospective Studiescommunity child healthgeneral medicine (see internal medicine)health services administration & managementprimary caresocial medicine

Identifiers

PMID34588265
PMCPMC8483051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.