ArticleJAMIA open2025
Integrating a risk prediction score in a clinical decision support to identify patients with health-related social needs in the emergency department.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To improve the identification of patients with health-related social needs (HRSNs) in the emergency department (ED), we developed and integrated a risk prediction score into an existing Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)-based clinical decision support (CDS). Materials and Methods: We conducted 2 phases of individual semi-structured qualitative interviews with ED clinicians to identify HRSN risk score design preferences for CDS integration. Following this, we used patient HRSN screening survey, health information exchange (HIE), and clinical data to run logistic regressions, developing an HRSN risk score aligned with ED clinician preferences. Results: Emergency department clinicians preferred HRSN risk scores displayed via visual cues like color-coding with different ranges (low, medium, and high) with higher model sensitivity to avoid missing patients with HRSNs. The overall performance of the risk prediction model was modest. Risk scores for food insecurity, transportation barriers, and financial strain were more sensitive, aligning with users' preference for inclusivity and accurately identifying patients likely to screen positive for these HRSNs. Discussion: The design and risk score model choices, such as visual displays with additional data, higher sensitivity thresholds, and use of different thresholds for fairness, may support effective CDS use by ED clinicians. Conclusion: Using HIE data and an external CDS is a feasible route for including patient HRSNs information in the ED. We relied on clinician preferences for incorporation into the existing CDS and were attentive to performance fairness. While the predictive performance of our risk score is modest, providing risk scores in this manner may potentially improve the identification of patients' HRSNs in the ED.
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.