Mary M Orr, Adolfo L Molina, Cassandra N Smola, Samantha L Hanna, Ariel E Carpenter, Chang L Wu
{"title":"入院儿童食物不安全筛查中的差异和偏差。","authors":"Mary M Orr, Adolfo L Molina, Cassandra N Smola, Samantha L Hanna, Ariel E Carpenter, Chang L Wu","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2023-007602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Food insecurity (FI) has increasingly become a focus for hospitalized patients. The best methods for screening practices, particularly in hospitalized children, are unknown. The purpose of the study was to evaluate results of an electronic medical record (EMR) embedded, brief screening tool for FI among inpatients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study from August 2020 to September 2022 for all children admitted to a quaternary children's hospital. Primary outcomes were proportion of those screened for FI and those identified to have a positive screen. FI was evaluated by The Hunger Vital Sign, a validated 2-question screen verbally obtained in the nursing intake form in the EMR. Covariates include demographic variables of age, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, and insurance. Statistical analyses including all univariate outcome and bivariate comparisons were performed with SAS 9.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 31 553 patient encounters with 81.7% screened for FI. Patients had a median age of 6.3 years, were mostly male (54.2%), White (60.6%), non-Hispanic (92.7%), English-speaking (94.3%), and had government insurance (79.8%). Younger (0-2 years), non-White, and noninsured patients were all screened significantly less often for FI (all P < .001). A total of 3.4% were identified as having FI. Patients who were older, non-White, Hispanic, non-English speaking, and had nonprivate insurance had higher FI (all P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the use of an EMR screening tool intended to be universal, we found variation in how we screen for FI. At times, we missed those who would benefit the most from intervention, and thus it may be subject to implementation bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"e304-e307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disparities and Biases in Food Insecurity Screening Among Admitted Children.\",\"authors\":\"Mary M Orr, Adolfo L Molina, Cassandra N Smola, Samantha L Hanna, Ariel E Carpenter, Chang L Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1542/hpeds.2023-007602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Food insecurity (FI) has increasingly become a focus for hospitalized patients. The best methods for screening practices, particularly in hospitalized children, are unknown. The purpose of the study was to evaluate results of an electronic medical record (EMR) embedded, brief screening tool for FI among inpatients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study from August 2020 to September 2022 for all children admitted to a quaternary children's hospital. Primary outcomes were proportion of those screened for FI and those identified to have a positive screen. FI was evaluated by The Hunger Vital Sign, a validated 2-question screen verbally obtained in the nursing intake form in the EMR. Covariates include demographic variables of age, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, and insurance. Statistical analyses including all univariate outcome and bivariate comparisons were performed with SAS 9.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 31 553 patient encounters with 81.7% screened for FI. Patients had a median age of 6.3 years, were mostly male (54.2%), White (60.6%), non-Hispanic (92.7%), English-speaking (94.3%), and had government insurance (79.8%). Younger (0-2 years), non-White, and noninsured patients were all screened significantly less often for FI (all P < .001). A total of 3.4% were identified as having FI. Patients who were older, non-White, Hispanic, non-English speaking, and had nonprivate insurance had higher FI (all P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the use of an EMR screening tool intended to be universal, we found variation in how we screen for FI. At times, we missed those who would benefit the most from intervention, and thus it may be subject to implementation bias.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e304-e307\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2023-007602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2023-007602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:食物不安全(FI)日益成为住院病人关注的焦点。筛查的最佳方法尚不清楚,尤其是在住院儿童中。本研究旨在评估嵌入电子病历(EMR)的简短筛查工具在住院患者中的筛查结果:这是一项横断面研究,研究时间为 2020 年 8 月至 2022 年 9 月,对象是一家四级儿童医院的所有住院儿童。主要结果是接受 FI 筛查的儿童比例和筛查结果呈阳性的儿童比例。饥饿生命体征是通过 EMR 中的护理接诊表中口头获得的一个经过验证的 2 个问题的筛查。协变量包括年龄、性别、种族、民族、主要语言和保险等人口统计学变量。统计分析包括所有单变量结果和双变量比较,使用 SAS 9.4 进行:共有 31 553 例患者就诊,其中 81.7% 接受了 FI 筛查。患者的中位年龄为 6.3 岁,大多为男性(54.2%)、白人(60.6%)、非西班牙裔(92.7%)、讲英语(94.3%),并有政府保险(79.8%)。年龄较小(0-2 岁)、非白人和无保险的患者接受 FI 筛查的频率都明显较低(所有 P <.001)。共有 3.4% 的患者被确定患有 FI。年龄较大、非白人、西班牙裔、不讲英语和无私人保险的患者的 FI 较高(均为 P <.001):尽管 EMR 筛查工具具有通用性,但我们发现在如何筛查 FI 方面存在差异。有时,我们会漏掉那些能从干预中获益最多的人,因此可能存在实施偏差。
Disparities and Biases in Food Insecurity Screening Among Admitted Children.
Background and objectives: Food insecurity (FI) has increasingly become a focus for hospitalized patients. The best methods for screening practices, particularly in hospitalized children, are unknown. The purpose of the study was to evaluate results of an electronic medical record (EMR) embedded, brief screening tool for FI among inpatients.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study from August 2020 to September 2022 for all children admitted to a quaternary children's hospital. Primary outcomes were proportion of those screened for FI and those identified to have a positive screen. FI was evaluated by The Hunger Vital Sign, a validated 2-question screen verbally obtained in the nursing intake form in the EMR. Covariates include demographic variables of age, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, and insurance. Statistical analyses including all univariate outcome and bivariate comparisons were performed with SAS 9.4.
Results: There were 31 553 patient encounters with 81.7% screened for FI. Patients had a median age of 6.3 years, were mostly male (54.2%), White (60.6%), non-Hispanic (92.7%), English-speaking (94.3%), and had government insurance (79.8%). Younger (0-2 years), non-White, and noninsured patients were all screened significantly less often for FI (all P < .001). A total of 3.4% were identified as having FI. Patients who were older, non-White, Hispanic, non-English speaking, and had nonprivate insurance had higher FI (all P < .001).
Conclusions: Despite the use of an EMR screening tool intended to be universal, we found variation in how we screen for FI. At times, we missed those who would benefit the most from intervention, and thus it may be subject to implementation bias.