Screening for social needs has gained traction as an approach to addressing social determinants of health, but it faces challenges regarding standardization, resource allocation, and follow-up care. The year-long study, conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges, integrated data from conferences, surveys, and key informant interviews to examine the integration of social needs screening into health care services within Academic Health Systems (AHS). The authors\' analysis unveiled eight key themes, showcasing AHS\'s active involvement in targeted social needs screening alongside persistent resource allocation obstacles. AHS are dedicated to efficiently identifying high-risk populations, fostering partnerships with community-based organizations, and embracing technology for closed-loop referrals. However, concerns endure about the utilization of reimbursement codes for social needs and regulatory compliance. AHS confront staffing issues, resource allocation intricacies, and the imperative for seamless integration across clinical and nonclinical departments. Notably, opportunities arise in standardized training, alignment of AHS priorities, exploration of social investment models, and engagement with state-level health information exchanges. Aligning clinical care, research pursuits, and community engagement endeavors holds promise for AHS in effectively addressing social needs.

UNASSIGNED: Social needs screening can help modify care delivery to meet patient needs and address non-medical barriers to optimal health. However, there is a need to understand how factors that exist at multiple levels of the healthcare ecosystem influence the collection of these data in primary care settings.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews involving healthcare providers and primary care clinic staff who represented 16 primary care practices. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to awareness of and assistance for patients\' social needs in primary care settings in Maryland. The interviews were coded to abstract themes highlighting barriers and facilitators to conducting social needs screening. The themes were organized through an inductive approach using the socio-ecological model delineating individual-, clinic-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to identifying and addressing patients\' social needs.
UNASSIGNED: We identified several individual barriers to awareness, including patient stigma about verbalizing social needs, provider frustration at eliciting needs they were unable to address, and provider unfamiliarity with community-based resources to address social needs. Clinic-level barriers to awareness included limited appointment times and connecting patients to appropriate community-based organizations. System-level barriers to awareness included navigating documentation challenges on the electronic health record.
UNASSIGNED: Overcoming barriers to effective screening for social needs in primary care requires not only practice- and provider-level process change but also an alignment of community resources and advocacy of policies to redistribute community assets to address social needs.

OBJECTIVE: Explore factors influencing patient comfort with and perceived helpfulness of screening for health-related social needs.
METHODS: In a parallel secondary mixed-methods analysis of data from three primary care clinics, we used logistic regression to examine effects of practice- and patient-level factors on comfort with and perceived helpfulness of social needs screening. We applied narrative analysis to 20 patient interviews to further understand how patients\' lived experiences influenced their perceptions of screening.
RESULTS: Among 511 patients, receiving an explanation about screening was associated with increased odds of comfort (OR 2.1, 95% CI [1.1-4.30]) and perceived helpfulness (OR 4.7 [2.8-7.8]). Those experiencing more needs were less likely to report comfort (3 + needs vs. 0: OR 0.2 [0.1-0.5]). Narratives elucidated how a history of stigmatizing experiences increased discomfort disclosing needs and captured how relationship quality with healthcare teams influenced perceptions of screening for patients with extensive needs.
CONCLUSIONS: Practice-level (screening explanation and therapeutic rapport) and patient-level factors (history and extent of needs) are key influences on comfort with and perceived helpfulness of screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Good communication about screening benefits all patients. Patients with extensive social needs may require additional sensitivity to their past experiences.

BACKGROUND: Health outcomes are strongly impacted by social determinants of health, including social risk factors and patient demographics, due to structural inequities and discrimination. Primary care is viewed as a potential medical setting to assess and address individual health-related social needs and to collect detailed patient demographics to assess and advance health equity, but limited literature evaluates such processes.
METHODS: We conducted an analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected from n = 507 Maryland Primary Care Program (MDPCP) practices through Care Transformation Requirements (CTR) reporting in 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize practice responses on social needs screening and demographic data collection. A stepwise regression analysis was conducted to determine factors predicting screening of all vs. a targeted subset of beneficiaries for unmet social needs.
RESULTS: Almost all practices (99%) reported conducting some form of social needs screening and demographic data collection. Practices reported variation in what screening tools or demographic questions were employed, frequency of screening, and how information was used. More than 75% of practices reported prioritizing transportation, food insecurity, housing instability, financial resource strain, and social isolation.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the MDPCP program there was widespread implementation of social needs screenings and demographic data collection. However, there was room for additional supports in addressing some challenging social needs and increasing detailed demographics. Further research is needed to understand any adjustments to clinical care in response to identified social needs or application of data for uses such as assessing progress towards health equity and the subsequent impact on clinical care and health outcomes.

Medical-legal partnership (MLP) embeds attorneys and paralegals into care delivery to help clinicians address root causes of health inequities. Notwithstanding decades of favorable outcomes, MLP is not as well-known as might be expected. In this essay, the authors explore ways in which strategic alignment of legal services with healthcare services in terms of professionalism, information collection and sharing, and financing might help the MLP movement become a more widespread, sustainable model for holistic care delivery.

Progress on addressing health inequalities is slow and in many places around the world the gap between the privileged and the disadvantaged is widening. This is driven largely by an unfair and unequal distribution of the social determinants of health. While upstream policy and agenda commitment is needed to improve social determinants of health at a population level, healthcare also has a role. Currently social information is sporadically collected and used in healthcare. Improving our understanding of social problems is crucial in targeting services and to reduce the overreliance on area-level measures of deprivation. This has the potential to improve patient care as well as more accurately capture socio-economic disadvantage. Here we argue that there is a role for primary care in screening for social needs to help address inequalities. Social needs screening, more commonly used in North America than Europe, aims to systematically collect social information in health and care settings. Healthcare professionals ask patients about social issues including employment, finances, housing, education and social isolation and this information is used to prompt referral to community services to address any need identified. Social needs screening has potential to address negative impacts of social determinants of health at an individual and population level. Providing a reliable measure of social need, screening gives healthcare professionals an opportunity to tailor and improve quality of care for patients and offer individualised support. It has been shown to improve individual social and health outcomes and positively impact healthcare utilisation. At a population level, social needs screening can improve the data on social determinants of health and therefore support policy makers and service delivery leaders to target resources and services more effectively to the communities most in need. Implementing social needs screening must take account of local healthcare service capacity and available community resources but where sustainable, effective programmes can be introduced, the potential benefits are manifold. While primary care alone cannot solve the root causes of health inequalities, we argue it could be a powerful actor in the fight for health equity.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common, especially among patients presenting with traumatic injury. We implemented an IPV screening program for patients admitted after trauma. We sought to determine whether specific demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with being screened or not screened for IPV and with IPV screen results.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study evaluating all patients admitted after trauma from July 2020-July 2022 in an Adult Level 1 Trauma Center.
RESULTS: There were 4147 admissions following traumatic injury, of which 70% were men and 30% were women. The cohort was 46% White, 20% Asian, 15% Black, and 17% other races. Twenty-three percent were Hispanic or Latino/a. Seventy-seven percent were admitted for blunt injuries and 16% for penetrating injuries. Thirteen percent (n = 559) of the cohort was successfully screened for IPV. Screening rates did not differ by gender, race, or ethnicity. After adjustment for demographic and clinical factors, patients admitted to the intensive care unit were significantly less likely to be screened. Of the screened patients, 30% (165) screened positive. These patients were more commonly Hispanic or Latino/a, insured by Medicaid and presented with a penetrating injury. There were no differences in injury severity in patients who screened positive versus those who screened negative.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant barriers to universal screening for IPV, including injury acuity, in patients admitted following trauma. However, the 30% rate of positive screens for IPV in patients admitted following trauma highlights the urgent need to understand and address barriers to screening in trauma settings to enable universal screening.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

Patient engagement has been a focus of patient-centered care in recent years, encouraging health care organizations to increase efforts to facilitate a patient\'s ability to participate in health care. At the same time, a growing body of research has examined the impact that social determinants of health (SDOH) have on patient health outcomes. Additionally, health care equity is increasingly becoming a focus of many organizations as they work to ensure that all patients receive equitable care. These three domains - patient engagement, SDOH, and health care equity - can intersect in the implementation of social needs screenings among health care organizations. We present a case study on a two-phase social needs screening implementation project and describe how this process focuses on equity. As health care organizations seek to increase patient engagement, address SDOH, and improve health equity, we highlight the need to move away from a siloed approach and view these efforts as interrelated. By approaching efforts to address these challenges and barriers as the duty of all those involved in the patient care process, there may be larger strides made toward equitable health care.

Food insecurity is a complex problem affected by a number of factors from individual to societal. While individual-level demographic information and population-level social determinants of health (SDoH) are commonly used to identify patients at risk of food insecurity and to direct resources, a more comprehensive understanding of food insecurity requires integrating multi-level data. Our goal is to identify factors associated with food insecurity using patient, health system, and population level data. Between January 2019 and April 2020, we screened adult patients visiting an academic health sciences emergency department in Utah using a 10-item social needs screener. Patients\' demographic data were linked to their screener responses. ZIP Code-level food-related SDoH such as accessibility to food providers, measured by geographic information systems methods, were assigned to patients. We then applied multilevel logistic regression modeling to identify factors associated with unmet food needs at two different levels-individual and ZIP Code. Unmet food needs were identified by asking patients if they felt there was not enough money for food in the last month, which grossly represents food insecurity. On a sample of 2,290 patients, 21.61% reported unmet food needs. Patient-reported housing, medical care, and utility needs along with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and primary care provider utilization were highly associated with unmet food needs. Our efforts to identify the population at risk of food insecurity should be centered around patient-reported social needs. Our results suggest that addressing food insecurity in health care settings should include assessing social needs in primary care.