Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36704207›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2023

Evaluating a social risk screening and referral program in an urban safety-net hospital emergency department.

Stephanie Loo, Emily Anderson, Jessica G Lin, Perri Smith, Genevra F Murray, Haeyeon Hong, Gabrielle A Jacquet, Rashmi Koul, Sophie Rosenmoss, Thea James and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Eligibility of emergency department patients for public benefit programs.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Stephanie LooDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management Boston University School of Public Health Boston Massachusetts USA.
Emily AndersonBoston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA.
Jessica G LinBoston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA.
Perri SmithDepartment of General Internal Medicine Boston Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.
Genevra F MurrayDepartment of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health New York University New York New York USA.
Haeyeon HongDepartment of Emergency Medicine Boston Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.
Gabrielle A JacquetBoston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA.
Rashmi KoulDepartment of Emergency Medicine Boston Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.
Sophie RosenmossBoston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA.
Thea JamesBoston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA.
Kalpana Narayan ShankarDepartment of Emergency Medicine Boston Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.
Pablo Buitron de la VegaBoston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Indexed as

emergency departmentquality improvementsafety netsocial determinants of healthsocial emergency medicinesocial needs screening

Identifiers

PMID36704207
PMCPMC9871409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.