What is already known on this topic? Self-management of health conditions does not occur in isolation but in the context of patients' physical, social, and family environment. What is added by this report? Implementation efforts should emphasize universal social screening during routine emergency department visits, with careful evaluation for potential bias and stigma among staff, providers, and patients. What are the implications for public health practice? Universal screening, referral, and aggregation of clinical and social resource data are possible by using existing resources, but training and the views of those engaged in screening and referrals need to be carefully considered in efforts to implement universal social needs screening.

Background Despite the importance of social determinants in health outcomes, little is known about the best practices for screening and referral during clinical encounters. This study aimed to implement universal social needs screening and community service referrals in an academic emergency department (ED), evaluating for feasibility, reach, and stakeholder perspectives. Methods Between January 2019 and February 2020, ED registration staff screened patients for social needs using a 10-item, low-literacy, English-Spanish screener on touchscreens that generated automatic referrals to community service outreach specialists and data linkages. The RE-AIM framework, specifically the constructs of reach and adoption, guided the evaluation. Reach was estimated through a number of approaches, completed screenings, and receipt of community service referrals. Adoption was addressed qualitatively via content analysis and qualitative coding techniques from (1) meetings, clinical interactions, and semi-structured interviews with ED staff and (2) an iterative “engagement studio” with an advisory group composed of ED patients representing diverse communities. Results Overall, 4608 participants were approached, and 61% completed the screener. The most common reason for non-completion was patient refusal (43%). Forty-seven percent of patients with completed screeners communicated one or more needs, 34% of whom agreed to follow-up by resource specialists. Of the 482 participants referred, 20% were reached by outreach specialists and referred to community agencies. Only 7% of patients completed the full process from screening to community service referral; older, male, non-White, and Hispanic patients were more likely to complete the referral process. Iterative staff (n = 8) observations and interviews demonstrated that, despite instruction for universal screening, patient presentation (e.g., appearance, insurance status) drove screening decisions. The staff communicated discomfort with, and questioned the usefulness of, screening. Patients (n = 10) communicated a desire for improved understanding of their unmet needs, but had concerns about stigmatization and privacy, and communicated how receptivity of screenings and outreach are influenced by the perceived sincerity of screening staff. Conclusions Despite the limited time and technical barriers, few patients with social needs ultimately received service referrals. Perspectives of staff and patients suggest that social needs screening during clinical encounters should incorporate structure for facilitating patient-staff relatedness and competence, and address patient vulnerability by ensuring universal, private screenings with clear intent. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04630041.

Topic This article will briefly review screening for depression and suicidal ideation in primary care and school‐based clinics, with a focus on in‐depth screening for imminent suicide risk, developing a safety plan, and incorporating handoffs to urgent and emergency mental health care personnel. The article will cover current definitions of levels of suicidal risk and clinic‐based protocols for a team approach to adolescents in crisis. Purpose To provide primary care and behavioral health nurses with evidence‐based suicide risk screening and assessment tools and best practices for using them in patient‐centered encounters with adolescents with suicidal thinking or behavior. Sources Used Journal articles, books, and reports. Conclusion Past studies have shown that many individuals who died by suicide had seen a primary care provider in 30 days before their deaths. Nurses in primary care settings should develop clinic‐based protocols for screening all adolescents for suicide risk, developing safety plans, and providing suicidal youth and families with monitoring, appropriate referrals, follow‐up, and support.

Realistic simulations of interactions around social determinants of health with adolescent standardized patients demonstrated the need to increase trainee practice in asking sensitive questions, as well as in devising appropriate follow-up responses, and in improving trainee familiarity with local resource referrals. Policy: Policymakers and credentialing boards should promote creation of more dynamic curricular programming that incorporates social determinants of health considerations to ensure that future health care trainees are adept and consistent in their screening and response to unmet social needs. Research: Our preliminary study should be expanded to better understand how explicit integration of social determinants of health into simulation experiences across a range of disciplines and types of trainees can help improve clinical practitioners' abilities to meaningfully integrate social determinants frameworks into their clinical interactions.