"Beyond Just a Supplement": Administrators' Visions for the Future of Virtual Primary Care Services.

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adoption and implementation of virtual primary care services, and little is known about whether and how virtual care services will be provided after the pandemic ends. We aim to identify how administrators at health care organizations perceive the future of virtual primary care services.MethodsIn March-April of 2021, we conducted semistructured qualitative phone interviews with administrators at 17 health care organizations that ranged from multi-state nonfederal delivery systems to single-site primary care practices. Organizations differed in size, structure, ownership, and geography. We explore how health care administrators anticipate their organization will offer virtual primary care services after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides.ResultsAll interviewed administrators expected virtual primary care services to persist after the pandemic. We categorize expected impact of future virtual services as limited (n = 4); targeted to a narrow set of clinical encounters (n = 5); and a major shift in primary care delivery (n = 8). The underlying motivation expressed by administrators for providing virtual care services was to remain financially stable and competitive. This motivation can be seen in the 3 main goals described for their anticipated use of virtual services: (1) optimizing medical services; (2) enhancing the patient experience; and (3) increasing loyalty among patients.ConclusionsHealth care organizations are considering how virtual primary care services can be used to improve patient outcomes, access to care, and convenience of care. To implement and sustain virtual primary care services, health care organizations will need long-term support from regulators and payers

Patient Experiences with Screening and Assistance for Social Isolation in Primary Care Settings.

BackgroundSocial isolation is a known predictor of mortality that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations in the USA. Although experts began to recognize it as a public health crisis prior to 2020, the novel coronavirus pandemic has accelerated recognition of social isolation as a serious threat to health and well-being.ObjectiveExamine patient experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation in primary care settings, and whether patient experiences with these activities are associated with the severity of reported social isolation.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in 2018.ParticipantsAdults (N = 251) were recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.Main measuresA modified version of the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI), endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; items to assess for prior experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation.Key resultsIn the sample population, 12.4% reported the highest levels of social isolation (SNI = 0/1), compared to 36.7%, 34.7%, and 16.3% (SNI = 2-4, respectively). Most patients had not been asked about social isolation in a healthcare setting (87.3%), despite reporting no discomfort with social isolation screening (93.9%). Neither discomfort with nor participation in prior screening for social isolation was associated with social isolation levels. Desire for assistance with social isolation (3.2%) was associated with a higher level of social isolation (AOR = 6.0, 95% CI, 1.3-28.8), as well as poor or fair health status (AOR = 9.1; 95% CI, 1.3-64.1).ConclusionsIn this study, few patients reported being screened previously for social isolation in a primary care setting, despite low levels of discomfort with screening. Providers should consider broadening social isolation screening and referral practices in healthcare settings, especially among sicker and more isolated patients who express higher levels of interest in assistance with social isolation

Screening for Immigration-Related Health Concerns in a Federally Qualified Health Center Serving a Diverse Latinx Community: A Mixed Methods Study

Immigration-related concerns can impact health and are an important consideration while caring for a multinational Latinx immigrant community. Patients and caregivers waiting for a non-urgent clinic appointment were randomly screened with one of two social risk screening tools. One tool included a question about "any health or stability concerns related to immigration status." The other tool did not include an immigration health question. Immediately following, respondents were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview regarding their social risk screening experience. 201 screens were completed, and 20 patients agreed to an interview. There were no significant sociodemographic differences between groups. Of those screened for immigration, 11% reported a concern. In both arms, interviewees felt that social risk screening was acceptable in a clinic setting. Questions about immigration are timely, important, and relevant, and can be considered when implementing social assessments in communities where there are high levels of trust in providers

Association of Financial Worry and Material Financial Risk with Short-Term Ambulatory Healthcare Utilization in a Sample of Subsidized Exchange Patients

BackgroundFinancial burden can affect healthcare utilization. Few studies have assessed the short-term associations between material (debt, trouble paying rent) and psychological (worry or distress about affording future healthcare) financial risks, and subsequent outpatient and emergency healthcare use. Worry was defined as concerns about affording future healthcare.ObjectiveExamine whether worry about affording healthcare is associated with healthcare utilization when controlling for material risk and general anxiety DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study PARTICIPANTS: Kaiser Permanente members with exchange-based federally subsidized health insurance (n = 450, 45% response rate) MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures of financial risks (material difficulty paying for medical care and worry about affording healthcare) and general anxiety. Healthcare use (primary care, urgent care, emergency department, and outpatient specialty visits) in the 6 months following survey completion.Key resultsEmergency department and primary care visits were not associated with material risk, worry about affording care, or general anxiety in individual and pooled analyses (all 95% confidence intervals (CI) for relative risk (RR) included 1). Although no individual predictor was associated with urgent care use (all 95% CIs for RR included 1), worry about affording prescriptions (relative risk (RR) = 2.01; 95% CI 1.14, 3.55) and general anxiety (RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.15, 0.95) were significant when included in the same model, suggesting the two confounded each other. Worry about affording healthcare services was associated with fewer specialty care visits (RR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.25, 0.64) even when controlling for material risk and general anxiety, although general anxiety was also associated with more specialty care visits (RR = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.23, 3.18).ConclusionsScreening for both general anxiety and financial worry may assist with specialty care utilization. Identifying these concerns may provide more opportunities to assist patients. Future research should examine interventions to reduce worry about cost of care

Interventions Addressing Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review

PurposeBased on the recognition that food insecurity (FI) is associated with poor health across the life course, many US health systems are actively exploring ways to help patients access food resources. This review synthesizes findings from studies examining the effects of health care-based interventions designed to reduce FI.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 through September 2018 that described health care- based FI interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated and pooled when appropriate. Study quality was rated using Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria.ResultsTwenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and examined a range of FI interventions and outcomes. Based on study design and sample size, 74% were rated low or very low quality. Studies of referral-based interventions reported moderate increases in patient food program referrals (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; SMD = 1.42, 95% CI, 0.76-2.08) and resource use (pooled SMD = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61). Few studies evaluated health or utilization outcomes; these generally reported small but positive effects.ConclusionsAlthough a growing base of literature explores health care-based FI interventions, the low number and low quality of studies limit inferences about their effectiveness. More rigorous evaluation of FI interventions that includes health and utilization outcomes is needed to better understand roles for the health care sector in addressing FI

Screening for Interpersonal Violence: Missed Opportunities and Potential Harms

IntroductionScreening 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsUsing 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

Perceived appropriateness of assessing for health-related socioeconomic risks among adult patients with cancer

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs.SignificanceNational organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs

Social Risk Factors and Desire for Assistance Among Patients Receiving Subsidized Health Care Insurance in a US-Based Integrated Delivery System

PurposeBecause social conditions such as food insecurity and housing instability shape health outcomes, health systems are increasingly screening for and addressing patients' social risks. This study documented the prevalence of social risks and examined the desire for assistance in addressing those risks in a US-based integrated delivery system.MethodsA survey was administered to Kaiser Permanente members on subsidized exchange health insurance plans (2018-2019). The survey included questions about 4 domains of social risks, desire for help, and attitudes. We conducted a descriptive analysis and estimated multivariate modified Poisson regression models.ResultsOf 438 participants, 212 (48%) reported at least 1 social risk factor. Housing instability was the most common (70%) factor reported. Members with social risks reported more discomfort being screened for social risks (14.2% vs 5.4%; P = .002) than those without risks, although 90% of participants believed that health systems should assist in addressing social risks. Among those with 1-2 social risks, however, only 27% desired assistance. Non-Hispanic Black participants who reported a social risk were more than twice as likely to desire assistance compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8).ConclusionsAthough most survey participants believed health systems have a role in addressing social risks, a minority of those reporting a risk wanted assistance and reported more discomfort being screened for risk factors than those without risks. Health systems should work to increase the comfort of patients in reporting risks, explore how to successfully assist them when desired, and offer resources to address these risks outside the health care sector.VISUAL ABSTRACT