Examining How Social Risk Factors Are Integrated Into Clinical Settings Using Existing Data: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Integrating social care into clinical care requires substantial resources. Use of existing data through a geographic information system (GIS) has the potential to support efficient and effective integration of social care into clinical settings. We conducted a scoping literature review characterizing its use in primary care settings to identify and address social risk factors. METHODS: In December 2018, we searched 2 databases and extracted structured data for eligible articles that (1) described the use of GIS in clinical settings to identify and/or intervene on social risks, (2) were published between December 2013 and December 2018, and (3) were based in the United States. Additional studies were identified by examining references. RESULTS: Of the 5,574 articles included for review, 18 met study eligibility criteria: 14 (78%) were descriptive studies, 3 (17%) tested an intervention, and 1 (6%) was a theoretical report. All studies used GIS to identify social risks (increase awareness); 3 studies (17%) described interventions to address social risks, primarily by identifying relevant community resources and aligning clinical services to patients' needs. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies describe associations between GIS and population health outcomes; however, there is a paucity of literature regarding GIS use to identify and address social risk factors in clinical settings. GIS technology may assist health systems seeking to address population health outcomes through alignment and advocacy; its current application in clinical care delivery is infrequent and largely limited to referring patients to local community resources.

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Assessing Students on the Social Determinants of Health.

PHENOMENON: Assessment and evaluation guidelines inform programmatic changes necessary for educational effectiveness. Presently, no widely accepted guidelines exist for educators to assess learners and evaluate programs regarding social determinants of health (SDOH) during physician and physician assistant (PA) education. We sought to garner expert consensus about effective SDOH learner assessment and program evaluation, so as to make recommendations for best practices related to SDOH education. APPROACH: We used a Delphi approach to conduct our study (September 2019 to December 2020). To administer our Delphi survey, we followed a three-step process: 1) literature review, 2) focus groups and semi-structured interviews, 3) question development and refinement. The final survey contained 72 items that addressed SDOH content areas, assessment methods, assessors, assessment integration, and program evaluation. Survey participants included 14 SDOH experts at US medical schools and PA programs. The survey was circulated for three rounds seeking consensus, and when respondents reached consensus on a particular question, that question was removed from subsequent rounds. FINDINGS: The geographically diverse sample of experts reached consensus on many aspects of SDOH assessment and evaluation. The experts selected three important areas to assess learners' knowledge, skills, and attitudes about SDOH. They identified assessment methods that were "essential", "useful, but not essential", and "not necessary." The essential assessment methods are performance rating scales for knowledge and attitudes and skill-based assessments. They favored faculty and patients as assessors, as well as learner self-assessment, over assessments conducted by other health professionals. Questions about separation versus incorporation of SDOH assessment with other educational assessment did not yield consensus opinion. The experts reached consensus on priority outcome measures to evaluate a school's SDOH program which included student attitudes toward SDOH, Competence-Based Assessment Scales, and the percentage of graduates involved in health equity initiatives. INSIGHTS: Based on the Delphi survey results, we make five recommendations that medical and PA educators can apply now when designing learner assessments and evaluating SDOH programming. These recommendations include what should be assessed, using what methods, who should do the assessments, and how they should be incorporated into the curriculum. This expert consensus should guide future development of an assessment and evaluation toolkit to optimize SDOH education and clinical practice.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2045490 .

Assessment and Evaluation in Social Determinants of Health Education: a National Survey of US Medical Schools and Physician Assistant Programs.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) curricular content in medical schools and physician assistant programs are increasing. However, there is little understanding of current practice in SDOH learner assessment and program evaluation, or what the best practices are. OBJECTIVE: Our study aim was to describe the current landscape of assessment and evaluation at US medical schools and physician assistant programs as a first step in developing best practices in SDOH education. DESIGN: We conducted a national survey of SDOH educators from July to December 2020. The 55-item online survey covered learner assessment methods, program evaluation, faculty training, and barriers to effective assessment and evaluation. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred six SDOH educators representing 26% of medical schools and 23% of PA programs in the USA completed the survey. KEY RESULTS: Most programs reported using a variety of SDOH learner assessment methods. Faculty and self were the most common assessors of learners' SDOH knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Common barriers to effective learner assessment were lack of agreement on "SDOH competency" and lack of faculty training in assessment. Programs reported using evaluation results to refine curricular content, identify the need for new content, and improve assessment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneity of SDOH assessment and evaluation practices among programs, as well as gaps and barriers in their educational practices. Specific guidance from accrediting bodies and professional organizations and agreement on SDOH competency as well as providing faculty with time, resources, and training will improve assessment and evaluation practice and ensure SDOH education is effective for students, patients, and communities.

Power and Language in Medical Education.

As medical educators, we aspire to teach the physicians of tomorrow the importance of considering a patient's social, environmental, historical, and cultural context when caring for them. In this paper, we posit that the language we use to communicate concepts and to describe patients and communities can have profound implications. Linguistic forms such as labels, metaphors, and descriptors can lead to disparities in care and reinforce systemic and structural inequities. At the same time, medical educators are challenged by changing language and contexts. The mutability of language offers medical educators the chance to cultivate tolerance of ambiguity, curiosity, and attention to detail in their students. While offering examples of how language in medical education can perpetuate biases that affect patient care, this paper will emphasize how the practice of attention to language is itself critical (rather than provide a list of appropriate words).

Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health in the Primary Care Clinical Training Environment: A Survey of the Landscape.

INTRODUCTION: This study surveyed the use of systematic strategies to address social determinants of health in the primary care clinical training environment. METHODS: We designed a 51-item questionnaire targeting medical educators from internal medicine, pediatrics, and family practice to assess strategies to identify and mitigate social needs, the role of trainees in this process, and barriers/facilitators to systematic approaches. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 104 medical educators from 77 institutions. Of the 104 respondents, 28% were not familiar with any standardized tools used for screening for social needs, 27% use geospatial (GIS) or geographic information system (GIG) data, and 35% reported that trainees were not involved in any part of assisting. CONCLUSION: Nearly one third of medical educators lack familiarity with standardized screening tools for social needs. More than one third reported that trainees are not involved with mitigating social needs. Geospatial and GIS data are not utilized frequently.