Implementation of Health-Related Social Needs Screening at Michigan Health Centers: A Qualitative Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are leaders in screening for and addressing patient's health-related social needs but variation exists in screening practices. This variation is relatively unexplored, particularly the influences of organizational and state policies. We employed a qualitative descriptive approach to study social needs screening practices at Michigan FQHCs to characterize screening processes and identify drivers of variation in screening implementation.Methods
Site visits and semistructured interviews were conducted from October 2016 through March 2017, to explore implementation of social needs screening in clinical practice. Five FQHCs were selected through maximum variation sampling. Within each site, snowball sampling identified care team members highly knowledgeable about social needs screening. We conducted 4 to 5 interviews per site. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic approach.Results
We interviewed 23 participants from 5 sites; these sites varied by geography, age distribution, and race/ethnicity. We identified 4 themes: (1) statewide initiatives and local leadership drove variation in screening practices; (2) as community health workers (CHWs) played an integral role in identifying patients' needs, their roles often shifted from that of screener to implementer; (3) social needs screening data was variably integrated into electronic health records and infrequently used for population health management; and (4) sites experienced barriers to social needs screening that limited the perceived impact and sustainability.Conclusions
FQHCs placed value on the role of CHWs, on sustainable initiatives, and on funding to support continued social needs screening in primary care settings.
SUBMITTER: Greenwood-Ericksen M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8282291 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are leaders in screening for and addressing patient's health-related social needs but variation exists in screening practices. This variation is relatively unexplored, particularly the influences of organizational and state policies. We employed a qualitative descriptive approach to study social needs screening practices at Michigan FQHCs to characterize screening processes and identify drivers of variation in screening implementation.MethodsSite visits and semistructured interviews were conducted from October 2016 through March 2017, to explore implementation of social needs screening in clinical practice. Five FQHCs were selected through maximum variation sampling. Within each site, snowball sampling identified care team members highly knowledgeable about social needs screening. We conducted 4 to 5 interviews per site. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic approach.ResultsWe interviewed 23 participants from 5 sites; these sites varied by geography, age distribution, and race/ethnicity. We identified 4 themes: (1) statewide initiatives and local leadership drove variation in screening practices; (2) as community health workers (CHWs) played an integral role in identifying patients' needs, their roles often shifted from that of screener to implementer; (3) social needs screening data was variably integrated into electronic health records and infrequently used for population health management; and (4) sites experienced barriers to social needs screening that limited the perceived impact and sustainability.ConclusionsFQHCs placed value on the role of CHWs, on sustainable initiatives, and on funding to support continued social needs screening in primary care settings.
| S-EPMC8282295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients' health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response.MethodsGuided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis.ResultsPatients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach.ConclusionOur results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.
| S-EPMC8445654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUnmet social needs contribute to growing health disparities and rising health care costs. Strategies to collect and integrate information on social needs into patients' electronic health records (EHRs) show promise for connecting patients with community resources. However, gaps remain in understanding the contextual factors that impact implementing these interventions in clinical settings.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with providers (January-September 2020) in two primary care clinics to inform the implementation of a module that collects and integrates patient-reported social needs information into the EHR. Questions addressed constructs within the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data were coded deductively using team-based framework analysis, followed by inductive coding and matrix analyses.ResultsForty patients participated in interviews, with 20 recruited at the clinics and 20 from home. Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 12 providers. Factors salient to acceptability and feasibility included patients' discomfort answering sensitive questions, concerns about privacy, difficulty reading/understanding module content, and technological literacy. Rapport with providers was a facilitator for patients to discuss social needs. Providers stressed that limited time with patients would be a barrier, and expressed concerns about the lack of available community resources.ConclusionFindings highlight the need for flexible approaches to assessing and discussing social needs with patients. Feasibility of the intervention is contingent upon support from the health system to facilitate social needs assessment and discussion. Further study of availability of community resources is needed to ensure intervention effectiveness.
| S-EPMC8727713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction/objectivesHealth-related social needs (HRSN) screening efforts have reported high rates of identified social needs. Little is known if efforts to conduct HRSN screening in resource-constrained federally-qualified health centers (FQHC) successfully captures a representative patient population.MethodsThis cross-sectional study extracted EMR data from 2016 to 2020 for 4731 screened patients from 7 affiliated clinics of a FQHC. Unscreened patients were pulled as a random sample from the study period. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic traits, chronic disease diagnoses and burden, and clinic visit type and frequency associated with being screened for HRSN.ResultsBHC screened 4731 unique patients or <1% of the total clinic population. Screened patients had a median of 3.3 (±2.5) unmet HRSN. Medicaid patients had higher odds of being screened (aOR = 1.38, CI 1.19-1.61) relative to Medicare patients. The odds of being screened for social needs increased with more provider visits per year: compared to fewer than 1 visit per year, patients with 1 to 3 provider visits (aOR = 2.06, CI 1.73-2.32), 4 to 6 provider visits (aOR = 3.34, CI 2.89-3.87), and more than 6 provider visits (aOR = 5.16, CI 4.35-6.12) all had higher odds of social needs screening. Patients with a higher comorbid disease burden (>2 conditions, aOR = 2.80, CI 2.07-3.79) had higher odds of screening.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate an increased likelihood to screen patients who visit outpatient services more often and have a higher comorbid disease burden. To meet state-level Medicaid requirements, resource-constrained FQHCs that implement clinic wide HRSN screening may be well served to identify a priori strategies to ensure representative and equitable screening across the patient population.
| S-EPMC9393584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveThere has been increasing attention to screening for health-related social needs. However, little is known about the screening practices of emergency departments (EDs). Within New England, we seek to identify the prevalence of ED screening for health-related social needs, understand the factors associated with screening, and understand how screening patterns for health-related social needs differ from those for violence, substance use, and mental health needs.MethodsWe analyzed data from the 2018 National Emergency Department Inventory-New England survey, which was administered to all 194 New England EDs during 2019. We used descriptive statistics to compare ED characteristics by screening practices, and multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with screening.ResultsAmong the 166 (86%) responding EDs, 64 (39%) reported screening for at least one health-related social need, 160 (96%) for violence (including intimate partner violence or other violent exposures), 148 (89%) for substance use disorder, and 159 (96%) for mental health needs. EDs reported a wide range of social work resources to address identified needs, with 155 (93%) reporting any social worker availability and 41 (27%) reporting continuous availability.ConclusionNew England EDs are screening for health-related social needs at a markedly lower rate than for violence, substance use, and mental health needs. EDs have relatively limited resources available to address health-related social needs. We encourage research on the development of scalable solutions for identifying and addressing health-related social needs in the ED.
| S-EPMC7755764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.
| S-EPMC10161727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening rates are low among disadvantaged patients; few studies have explored barriers to screening in community health centers. The purpose of this study was to describe barriers to/facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among diverse patients served by community health centers. METHODS: We identified twenty-three outpatients who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and their 10 primary care physicians. Using in-depth semi-structured interviews, we asked patients to describe factors influencing their screening decisions. For each unscreened patient, we asked his or her physician to describe barriers to screening. We conducted patient interviews in English (n = 8), Spanish (n = 2), Portuguese (n = 5), Portuguese Creole (n = 1), and Haitian Creole (n = 7). We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews, and then identified major themes in the interviews. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: 1) Unscreened patients cited lack of trust in doctors as a barrier to screening whereas few physicians identified this barrier; 2) Unscreened patients identified lack of symptoms as the reason they had not been screened; 3) A doctor's recommendation, or lack thereof, significantly influenced patients' decisions to be screened; 4) Patients, but not their physicians, cited fatalistic views about cancer as a barrier. Conversely, physicians identified competing priorities, such as psychosocial stressors or comorbid medical illness, as barriers to screening. In this culturally diverse group of patients seen at community health centers, similar barriers to screening were reported by patients of different backgrounds, but physicians perceived other factors as more important. CONCLUSION: Further study of these barriers is warranted.
| S-EPMC2373875 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background Since the first step in meeting the health needs of primiparous women involves understanding their conditions, the present study aimed to determine the health needs of primiparous women from their own viewpoints. Methods This study had a qualitative approach based on the conventional qualitative content analysis method, in which the purposive sampling method was used. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews. Data saturation was achieved by interviewing 12 participants. To ensure the study was rigorous, the four criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability were taken into account. Results The findings of this study consisted of 150 codes, 19 subcategories, and 6 categories, as follows: 1) the intense need for social support, 2) the need for prior preparation for pregnancy, 3) fears and worries, 4) the necessity of the availability of the needed infrastructures and requirements in the health center, 5) falling in love with the baby, and 6) seeking information from appropriate sources. Conclusion The present study showed that primiparous women need to receive more social and psychological support from family members and healthcare workers and that it is essential to improve the available infrastructures and services in healthcare centers and to provide the needed counseling to pregnant mothers to enable them to go through the pregnancy period smoothly.
| S-EPMC7520153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFederally Qualified Health Centers serve 29.8 million low-income patients across the U.S., many of whom have unaddressed social risks. In 2019, for the first time, data on social risk screening capabilities were collected from every U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center. The objectives of this study were to describe the national rates of social risk screening capabilities across Federally Qualified Health Centers, identify organizational predictors of screening, and assess between-state heterogeneity.MethodsUsing a 100% sample of U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers (N=1,384, representing 29.8 million patients) from the 2019 Uniform Data System, the primary outcome was whether a Federally Qualified Health Center collected data on patients' social risk factors (yes/no). Summary statistics on the rates of social risk screening capabilities were generated in aggregate and by state. Linear probability models were then used to estimate the relationship between the probability of social risk screening and 7 key Federally Qualified Health Center characteristics (e.g., Federally Qualified Health Center size, Medicaid MCO contract, Medicaid accountable care organization presence). Data were analyzed in 2020‒2021.ResultsMost (71%) Federally Qualified Health Centers collected social risk data, with a between-state variation. The most common screener was the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets Risks and Experiences (43% of Federally Qualified Health Centers that screened), whereas 22% collected social risk data using a nonstandardized screener. After adjusting for other characteristics, Federally Qualified Health Centers with social risk screening capabilities served more total patients, were more likely to be located in a state with a Medicaid accountable care organization, and were less likely to have an MCO contract.ConclusionsThere has been widespread adoption of social risk screening tools across U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers, but between-state disparities exist. Targeting social risk screening resources to smaller Federally Qualified Health Centers may increase the adoption of screening tools.
| S-EPMC9035213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC.MethodsWe recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses.ResultsWe interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice.ConclusionUrologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.
| S-EPMC7936475 | biostudies-literature