Gillespie Colleen, Wilhite Jeffrey A, Hanley Kathleen, Hardowar Khemraj, Altshuler Lisa, Fisher Harriet, Porter Barbara, Wallach Andrew, Zabar Sondra
Department of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Institute for Innovations in Medical Education, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Nov;32(11):632-643. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013904. Epub 2022 May 27.
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.
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.
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.
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.
尽管目前正在努力解决健康的社会决定因素(SDOH),但对于医生在这方面的实践情况知之甚少,尽管有证据表明未能充分了解并回应社会需求可能会危及患者安全,并损害治疗的质量和效果。特别是,旨在增强对社会需求回应的干预措施尚未根据实际实践行为进行评估。在本研究中,我们评估了向初级保健医生提供关于其SDOH实践行为的反馈与提高对住房和社会隔离需求的了解及回应率之间的关联程度。
未事先通知的标准化患者(USPs),即经过培训能始终如一地扮演临床场景的人员,被秘密派往一个城市安全网医疗系统的所有五个初级保健团队。场景涉及常见的初级保健情况,每个场景都包含一个潜在的住房问题(例如,公寓里有霉菌、拥挤)和社会隔离问题,标准化患者评估医生是否充分了解了这些需求,如果了解了,他们是否解决了这些需求。干预措施包括向医生提供其SDOH实践的审核/反馈报告以及简短的书面教育材料。采用干预前-干预后比较组设计来评估该干预措施;四个团队接受了干预,一个团队作为“替代”对照组(未接受干预)。将干预前(2017年2月至2017年12月)对预设住房和社会需求的筛查及回应率与干预期(2018年1月至2019年3月)干预组和对照组的相应比率进行比较。
干预前完成了108次就诊,干预期间完成了183次就诊。总体而言,社会需求有一半时间未被了解,而得到充分解决的情况更少。收到审核/反馈报告的团队识别住房问题的比率有所增加(46%-60%;p=0.045),而替代对照组的这一比率有所下降(61%-42%;p=0.174)。干预组对住房需求的回应率显著提高(15%-41%;p=0.004),而对照组则没有变化(21%-29%;p=0.663)。与基线相比,干预组在干预后更频繁地识别出社会隔离问题(53%)(基线为39%;p=0.041),而对照组保持不变(39%对32%;p=0.601)。干预组和对照组对社会隔离问题的全面探究率仍然较低。
结果表明,医生可能并非始终如一地筛查或回应社会需求,但获得关于这些实践的反馈以及简短的针对性教育可以提高SDOH筛查和回应率。