Introduction

Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020.

Results

Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11.

Conclusions

Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Objective

Evaluate self-reported electronic screening (eScreening) in a VA Transition Care Management Program (TCM) to improve the accuracy and completeness of administrative ethnicity and race data.

Materials and methods

We compared missing, declined, and complete (neither missing nor declined) rates between (1) TCM-eScreening (ethnicity and race entered into electronic tablet directly by patient using eScreening), (2) TCM-EHR (Veteran-completed paper form plus interview, data entered by staff), and (3) Standard-EHR (multiple processes, data entered by staff). The TCM-eScreening (n = 7113) and TCM-EHR groups (n = 7113) included post-9/11 Veterans. Standard-EHR Veterans included all non-TCM Gulf War and post-9/11 Veterans at VA San Diego (n = 92 921).

Results

Ethnicity: TCM-eScreening had lower rates of missingness than TCM-EHR and Standard-EHR (3.0% vs 5.3% and 8.6%, respectively, P < .05), but higher rates of "decline to answer" (7% vs 0.5% and 1.2%, P < .05). TCM-EHR had higher data completeness than TCM-eScreening and Standard-EHR (94.2% vs 90% and 90.2%, respectively, P < .05). Race: No differences between TCM-eScreening and TCM-EHR for missingness (3.5% vs 3.4%, P > .05) or data completeness (89.9% vs 91%, P > .05). Both had better data completeness than Standard-EHR (P < .05), which despite the lowest rate of "decline to answer" (3%) had the highest missingness (10.3%) and lowest overall completeness (86.6%). There was strong agreement between TCM-eScreening and TCM-EHR for ethnicity (Kappa = .92) and for Asian, Black, and White Veteran race (Kappas = .87 to .97), but lower agreement for American Indian/Alaska Native (Kappa = .59) and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Kappa = .50) Veterans.

Conculsions

eScreening is a promising method for improving ethnicity and race data accuracy and completeness in VA.

Introduction

Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019.

Results

Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07).

Conclusions

A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier.

Supplement information

This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Introduction

This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings.

Methods

As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes.

Results

Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks.

Conclusions

Despite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams.

Supplement information

This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.