Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs.

Quality & Safety in Health Care Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-27 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013904
Colleen Gillespie, Jeffrey A Wilhite, Kathleen Hanley, Khemraj Hardowar, Lisa Altshuler, Harriet Fisher, Barbara Porter, Andrew Wallach, Sondra Zabar
{"title":"Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs.","authors":"Colleen Gillespie,&nbsp;Jeffrey A Wilhite,&nbsp;Kathleen Hanley,&nbsp;Khemraj Hardowar,&nbsp;Lisa Altshuler,&nbsp;Harriet Fisher,&nbsp;Barbara Porter,&nbsp;Andrew Wallach,&nbsp;Sondra Zabar","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.</p>","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs.

Methods: Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams.

Results: 108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams.

Conclusions: Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决初级保健中健康的社会决定因素:一项准实验研究,使用未经宣布的标准化患者来评估审计/反馈对医生识别和回应社会需求率的影响。
背景尽管正在努力解决健康的社会决定因素(SDOH),但人们对医生的SDOH实践知之甚少,尽管有证据表明,未能充分引发和回应社会需求可能会危及患者安全,并损害治疗的质量和有效性。特别是,旨在加强对社会需求的反应的干预措施尚未使用实际实践行为进行评估。在这项研究中,我们评估了向初级保健医生提供关于其SDOH实践行为的反馈与引发和回应住房和社会隔离需求的比率增加的程度。方法将未经宣布的标准化患者(USP),即接受过持续描绘临床场景培训的参与者,匿名送往城市安全网医疗系统中的所有五个初级保健团队。场景涉及常见的初级保健条件,每种情况都包括潜在的住房(如公寓发霉、拥挤)和社会隔离问题,USP评估医生是否完全引发了这些需求,如果是,他们是否解决了这些需求。干预措施包括向医生提供其SDOH实践的审计/反馈报告,以及简短的书面教育材料。采用前置对照组设计对干预措施进行评价;四个小组接受了干预,一个小组作为“代理”比较(没有干预)。干预前(2017年2月至2017年12月)对照本宣科的住房和社会需求的筛查率和反应率与干预期(2018年1月至2019年3月)的干预率和对照组的干预率进行了比较。结果干预前完成了108次访视,干预期间完成了183次访视。总的来说,社会需求在一半的时间里没有得到满足,而且得到充分解决的频率更低。收到审计/反馈报告的团队发现住房问题的比率增加了(46%-60%;p=0.045),而在代理比较中下降了(61%-42%;p=0.174)。干预团队对住房需求的回应率显著增加(15%-41%;p=0.004),但比较团队没有(21%-29%;p=0.663)。干预后发现社会孤立的频率更高(53%)与基线(39%;p=0.041)相比,干预组保持不变(39%对32%;p=0.601)。干预组和对照组对社会隔离的充分探索仍然很低。结论结果表明,医生可能没有始终如一地筛查或回应社会需求,但接受这些实践的反馈,加上简短的有针对性的教育,可以提高SDOH筛查和回应率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1