ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Emergency Department Comprehensive Social Risk Screening and Resource Referral Program.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe emergency department (ED) is an appropriate location to screen for and address social risks among patients; however, a standardized process does not currently exist. Our objective in this study was to describe the implementation and findings of a social risk screening and resource referral program using a comprehensive screening questionnaire.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, cohort study between July 2022-April 2023 at a single academic, urban ED in Los Angeles, CA. Trained staff on rotating shifts recruited ED patients between 6 am to midnight, with an average of 40 hours of coverage per week including weekends. Patients were excluded if they were <18 years of age, could not provide informed consent, or were deemed too medically unstable. Trained staff screened eligible consenting patients at ED bedside for social risks within 12 different domains of social determinants of health using a 19-question survey. Personalized resources were provided through an online platform or through direct communication with a social worker. Demographic data and patient responses were recorded in a deidentified database. We used a univariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate associations between demographic information and burden of social risk.
resultsA total of 4,277 ED patients were considered for screening, and 1,677 (39.2%) were eligible: 1,473 (87.8%) patients consented to social risk screening, and 1,078 (73.2%) of them had at least one social risk as indicated by the screening questionnaire. The most commonly reported social risks were social isolation (39%) and depression (23%). Between 88.9-96.8% of patients categorized as medium social risk were successfully provided resources through the online platform. Between 80.8-100% of patients categorized into high social risk had successfully connected with a social worker while in the ED. In this sample, there were significantly higher odds of having greater than one social risk for female (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.67) and Black patients (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02-1.85) compared to male and White patients, respectively.
conclusionThis study describes the findings from a comprehensive social risk screening and resource referral program at a large, urban, academic ED. The results will inform resource prioritization at the study institution. This model can serve as a basis for similar institutions to use, while individualizing their own approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.