Evaluating a social risk screening and referral program in an urban safety-net hospital emergency department.

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Addressing Inequities in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Uptake: The Boston Medical Center Health System Experience.

Academic medical centers could play an important role in increasing access to and uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, especially in Black and Latino communities that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. This article describes the vaccination program developed by the Boston Medical Center (BMC) health system (New England's largest safety-net health system), its affiliated community health centers (CHCs), and community partners. The program was based on a conceptual framework for community interventions and aimed to increase equitable access to vaccination in the hardest-hit communities through community-based sites in churches and community centers, mobile vaccination events, and vaccination on the BMC campus. Key strategies included a communication campaign featuring trusted messengers, a focus on health equity, established partnerships with community leaders and CHCs, and strong collaboration with local health departments and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to ensure equitable allocation of the vaccine supply. Process factors involved the use of robust analytics relying on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The vaccination program administered 109 938 first doses, with 94 703 (86%) given at community sites and 2466 (2%) given at mobile sites. Mobile vaccination events were key in reaching younger people living in locations with the highest SVIs. Challenges included the need for a robust operational infrastructure and mistrust of the health system given the long history of economic disinvestment in the surrounding community. The BMC model could serve as a blueprint for other medical centers interested in implementing programs aimed at increasing vaccine uptake during a pandemic and in developing an infrastructure to address other health-related disparities.

Validation of a Crisis Standards of Care Model for Prioritization of Limited Resources During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis in an Urban, Safety-Net, Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare resources even in wealthy nations, necessitating rationing of limited resources without previously established crisis standards of care protocols. In Massachusetts, triage guidelines were designed based on acute illness and chronic life-limiting conditions. In this study, we sought to retrospectively validate this protocol to cohorts of critically ill patients from our hospital. DESIGN: We applied our hospital-adopted guidelines, which defined severe and major chronic conditions as those associated with a greater than 50% likelihood of 1- and 5-year mortality, respectively, to a critically ill patient population. We investigated mortality for the same intervals. SETTING: An urban safety-net hospital ICU. PATIENTS: All adults hospitalized during April of 2015 and April 2019 identified through a clinical database search. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 365 admitted patients, 15.89% had one or more defined chronic life-limiting conditions. These patients had higher 1-year (46.55% vs 13.68%; p < 0.01) and 5-year (50.00% vs 17.22%; p < 0.01) mortality rates than those without underlying conditions. Irrespective of classification of disease severity, patients with metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disease had greater than 50% 1-year mortality, whereas patients with chronic lung disease and cirrhosis had less than 50% 1-year mortality. Observed 1- and 5-year mortality for cirrhosis, heart failure, and metastatic cancer were more variable when subdivided into severe and major categories. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with major and severe chronic medical conditions overall had 46.55% and 50.00% mortality at 1 and 5 years, respectively. However, mortality varied between conditions. Our findings appear to support a crisis standards protocol which focuses on acute illness severity and only considers underlying conditions carrying a greater than 50% predicted likelihood of 1-year mortality. Modifications to the chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and cirrhosis criteria should be refined if they are to be included in future models.

Pandemic Forum: Reflections from Canadian Theatremakers

This section presents views offered by several notable people in the Canadian theatre sector on various social issues affecting the industry. Topics discussed include the transition to online theatre performances due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic acknowledged by theatre director Marjorie Chan, the reevaluation of the relationship of theatres with the community mentioned by playwright Yvette Nolan, and the problem of racism in Canadian theatre noted by producer Luke Reece.

Introduction: Theatre After the Explosion

An introduction to the journal is presented which discusses topics featured within the issue including the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on Canadian theares, the institutional racism within theatre programs, and the online Social Distancing Festival held by artists.

Race/Ethnicity, Underlying Medical Conditions, Homelessness, and Hospitalization Status of Adult Patients with COVID-19 at an Urban Safety-Net Medical Center - Boston, Massachusetts, 2020.

As of July 5, 2020, approximately 2.8 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 130,000 COVID-19-associated deaths had been reported in the United States (1). Populations historically affected by health disparities, including certain racial and ethnic minority populations, have been disproportionally affected by and hospitalized with COVID-19 (2-4). Data also suggest a higher prevalence of infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among persons experiencing homelessness (5). Safety-net hospitals,† such as Boston Medical Center (BMC), which provide health care to persons regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay, treat higher proportions of these populations and might experience challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. This report describes the characteristics and clinical outcomes of adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 treated at BMC during March 1-May 18, 2020. During this time, 2,729 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were treated at BMC and categorized into one of the following mutually exclusive clinical severity designations: exclusive outpatient management (1,543; 56.5%), non-intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization (900; 33.0%), ICU hospitalization without invasive mechanical ventilation (69; 2.5%), ICU hospitalization with mechanical ventilation (119; 4.4%), and death (98; 3.6%). The cohort comprised 44.6% non-Hispanic black (black) patients and 30.1% Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) patients. Persons experiencing homelessness accounted for 16.4% of patients. Most patients who died were aged ≥60 years (81.6%). Clinical severity differed by age, race/ethnicity, underlying medical conditions, and homelessness. A higher proportion of Hispanic patients were hospitalized (46.5%) than were black (39.5%) or non-Hispanic white (white) (34.4%) patients, a finding most pronounced among those aged <60 years. A higher proportion of non-ICU inpatients were experiencing homelessness (24.3%), compared with homeless patients who were admitted to the ICU without mechanical ventilation (15.9%), with mechanical ventilation (15.1%), or who died (15.3%). Patient characteristics associated with illness and clinical severity, such as age, race/ethnicity, homelessness, and underlying medical conditions can inform tailored strategies that might improve outcomes and mitigate strain on the health care system from COVID-19.