Dataset Information

Implementation context for addressing social needs in a learning health system: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Unmet 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Forty 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.

Conclusion

Findings 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.

SUBMITTER: Theis RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8727713 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the cost of integrating social needs activities into a health care program that works toward health equity by addressing socioeconomic barriers.Data sources/study settingCosts for a heart failure health care program based in a safety-net hospital were reported by program staff for the program year May 2018-April 2019. Additional data sources included hospital records, invoices, and staff survey.Study designWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, case study of a program that includes health education, outpatient care, financial counseling and free medication; transportation and home services for those most in need; and connections to other social services. Program costs were summarized overall and for mutually exclusive categories: health care program (fixed and variable) and social needs activities.Data collectionProgram cost data were collected using a activity-based, micro-costing approach. In addition, we conducted a survey that was completed by key staff to understand time allocation.Principal findingsProgram costs were approximately $1.33 million, and the annual per patient cost was $1455. Thirty percent of the program costs was for social needs activities: 18% for 30-day supply of medications and addressing socioeconomic barriers to medication adherence, 18% for mobile health services (outpatient home visits), 53% for navigating services through a financial counselor and community health worker, and 12% for transportation to visits and addressing transportation barriers. Most of the program costs were for personnel: 92% of the health care program fixed, 95% of the health care program variable, and 78% of social needs activities.DiscussionHistorically, social and health care services are funded by different systems and have not been integrated. We estimate the cost of implementing social needs activities into a health care program. This work can inform implementation for hospitals attempting to address social determinants of health and social needs in their patient population.

Project description:BackgroundImproving quality of palliative and end of life care in older people's care homes is essential. Increasing numbers of people die in these settings, yet access to high quality palliative care is not routinely provided. While evidence for models of care are growing, there remains little insight regarding how to translate evidence-based models into practice. Palliative Care Needs Rounds (hereafter Needs Rounds) have a robust evidence base, for providing palliative care in care homes, reducing resident hospitalisations, improving residents' quality of death, and increasing staff confidence in caring for dying residents. This study aimed to identify and describe the context and mechanisms of change that facilitate implementation of Needs Rounds in care homes, and enable other services to reap the benefits of the Needs Rounds approach to care provision.MethodsQualitative interviews, embedded within a large randomised control trial, were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 staff from 11 care homes using Needs Rounds. The sample included managers, nurses, and care assistants. Staff participated in individual or dyadic semi-structured interviews. Implementation science frameworks and thematic analysis were used to interpret and analyse the data.ResultsContextual factors affecting implementation included facility preparedness for change, leadership, staff knowledge and skills, and organisational policies. Mechanisms of change that facilitated implementation included staff as facilitators, identifying and triaging residents, strategizing knowledge exchange, and changing clinical approaches to care. Care home staff also identified planning and documentation, and shifts in communication. The outcomes reported by staff suggest reductions in hospitalisations and problematic symptoms for residents, improved staff skills and confidence in caring for residents in their last months, weeks and days of life.ConclusionsThe significance of this paper is in offering care homes detailed insights into service contexts and mechanisms of change that will enable them to reap the benefits of Needs Rounds in their own services. The paper thus will support the implementation of an approach to care that has a robust evidence base, for a population under-served by specialist palliative care.Trial registrationACTRN12617000080325 .

Project description:Introduction: Health is impacted by a wide range of nonmedical factors, collectively termed the social determinants of health (SDoH). As the mechanisms by which these factors influence wellness and disease continue to be uncovered, health systems are beginning to assess their roles in addressing patient's social needs. This study seeks to identify and analyze clinic-based interventions aimed at addressing patients' social needs in perinatal care, including prenatal, antepartum, and postpartum care. Methods: We conducted a search of six databases through May 2020 for articles describing screening or intervention activities addressing social needs in at least one SDoH domain as defined by Healthy People 2020. We required that studies include pregnant or postpartum women and be based in a clinical setting. Results: Thirty-one publications describing 26 unique studies were identified. Most studies were either randomized-controlled trials (n=10) or observational studies (n=7) and study settings were both public and private. The mean age of women ranged from 17.4 to 34.1 years. Most studies addressed intimate partner violence (n=19). The next most common need addressed was social support (n=5), followed by food insecurity (n=3), and housing (n=2). Types of interventions varied from simple screening to ongoing counseling and case management. There was wide heterogeneity in outcomes investigated. Most IPV interventions that included counseling or ongoing support resulted in reduced IPV recurrence and severity. No intervention with only screening showed a reduction in rate of IPV. Conclusion: This systematic review shines light on several avenues to support pregnant and postpartum women through interventions that embed acknowledgment of social needs and actions addressing these needs into the clinical environment. The results of this review suggest that interventions with counseling or ongoing support may show promise in alleviating social risk factors and improving some clinical outcomes. However, the strength of this evidence is limited by the paucity of studies. More rigorous research is imperative to augment the knowledge of social needs interventions, especially in domains outside of IPV.