Do new quality measures for social risk screening 'measure up'?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Kameswari Potharaju, Laura M Gottlieb, Matthew Pantell, Danielle Hessler Jones
{"title":"Do new quality measures for social risk screening 'measure up'?","authors":"Kameswari Potharaju, Laura M Gottlieb, Matthew Pantell, Danielle Hessler Jones","doi":"10.1097/MOP.0000000000001414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>New social risk screening standards and quality metrics reward or penalize healthcare delivery organizations for social risk screening. After summarizing the recent literature on social risk screening in pediatric healthcare settings we consider how this evidence - and persistent evidence gaps - might inform future standards development.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Reported social risk screening rates, measures, and modality differ greatly across recent work. Although many caregivers report acceptability of screening, experiences and expectations around effective follow-up vary. Likewise, although most frontline clinical providers find screening acceptable, they report significant implementation challenges related to time constraints, insufficient workforce, and availability of social services. Qualitative findings suggest opportunities to improve screening implementation. Literature examining the impacts of screening continues to focus on immediate posited impacts of assistance programs; few studies assess health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The existing literature does not clearly indicate whether, when, how, or for whom social risk screening standards focused on screening quantity will contribute to child health or health equity. Informed by studies on patient experience, quality measures focused on screening quantity (e.g. how many individuals are screened) should be paired with efforts to improve screening quality (i.e. patient/caregiver screening experience) as well as social and health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10985,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000001414","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: New social risk screening standards and quality metrics reward or penalize healthcare delivery organizations for social risk screening. After summarizing the recent literature on social risk screening in pediatric healthcare settings we consider how this evidence - and persistent evidence gaps - might inform future standards development.

Recent findings: Reported social risk screening rates, measures, and modality differ greatly across recent work. Although many caregivers report acceptability of screening, experiences and expectations around effective follow-up vary. Likewise, although most frontline clinical providers find screening acceptable, they report significant implementation challenges related to time constraints, insufficient workforce, and availability of social services. Qualitative findings suggest opportunities to improve screening implementation. Literature examining the impacts of screening continues to focus on immediate posited impacts of assistance programs; few studies assess health outcomes.

Summary: The existing literature does not clearly indicate whether, when, how, or for whom social risk screening standards focused on screening quantity will contribute to child health or health equity. Informed by studies on patient experience, quality measures focused on screening quantity (e.g. how many individuals are screened) should be paired with efforts to improve screening quality (i.e. patient/caregiver screening experience) as well as social and health outcomes.

社会风险筛查的新质量标准是否 "达标"?
审查目的:新的社会风险筛查标准和质量指标会奖励或惩罚医疗机构的社会风险筛查工作。在总结了有关儿科医疗机构社会风险筛查的最新文献后,我们考虑了这些证据--以及持续存在的证据差距--如何为未来的标准制定提供参考:最近的研究结果表明,社会风险筛查率、筛查措施和筛查方式在近期的研究中存在很大差异。尽管许多护理人员都表示可以接受筛查,但对有效随访的经验和期望却各不相同。同样,尽管大多数一线临床服务提供者认为筛查是可以接受的,但他们也报告了与时间限制、劳动力不足和社会服务可用性相关的重大实施挑战。定性研究结果表明,筛查的实施还有改进的余地。小结:现有文献并未明确指出,以筛查数量为重点的社会风险筛查标准是否会促进儿童健康或健康公平,以及何时、如何或针对谁进行筛查。根据对患者体验的研究,注重筛查数量(如筛查了多少人)的质量措施应与提高筛查质量(即患者/护理人员的筛查体验)以及社会和健康结果的努力相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
184
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Current Opinion in Pediatrics is a reader-friendly resource which allows the reader to keep up-to-date with the most important advances in the pediatric field. Each issue of Current Opinion in Pediatrics contains three main sections delivering a diverse and comprehensive cover of all key issues related to pediatrics; including genetics, therapeutics and toxicology, adolescent medicine, neonatology and perinatology, and orthopedics. Unique to Current Opinion in Pediatrics is the office pediatrics section which appears in every issue and covers popular topics such as fever, immunization and ADHD. Current Opinion in Pediatrics is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信