as they highlight a vulnerable population in need of FI screening and intervention. Providers should enhance FI screening protocols in this patient population to
enable the prescription of appropriate interventions, improve the mental health of patients, and subsequently reduce the risk of further opioid use.
ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH SCREENING Jonathon Hurley, Taylor Jazrawi, Ilyssa Muise, Joshua Albert, Georgio Desmornes, Margaret Huntwork, John Carlson; Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA.
Introduction: Social determinants of health (SDH) play important roles in affecting clinical outcomes. Validated screening tools can identify patients in need of these supports but are not widely used. In part, this is because there is limited data on the time investment required for screening and referral, along with outcome data describing likelihood of benefit to patients. Methods/Results: This is a prospective, observational implementation project. Participants are evaluated for SDH issues using the standardized Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks and Experiences (PRAPARE) tool. Team members keep track of time taken to administer the tool and provide resources. After 4 weeks, participants are contacted to assess referral service utilization. Participants are recruited from the NOELA Community Health Center and the Tulane Allergy and Immunology Clinic, both in New Orleans, Louisiana. A cost-benefit analysis will be conducted between the provider time investment and patient resource utilization. Descriptive statistics will be generated to describe outcome frequencies. To date, 10 patients
have been screened at the NOELA clinic (show rate of 75.0%) and 18 at Tulane (show rate of 72.4%). Of these patients, 10% at NOELA and 5.6% at Tulane screened positive and were offered referrals. Interpreter services were required for 70% of patients at NOELA and no patients at Tulane. The average time spent on screening and referrals was 7 minutes, 2 seconds at NOELA and 4 minutes, 21 seconds at Tulane. The mean time spent screening patients using interpreter services was 6 minutes, 26 seconds, compared to 4 minutes, 54 seconds without an interpreter. Discussion: While data collection is preliminary, positive screening rates are lower than expected, especially at NOELA. It is difficult to assess if this is because the screening tool has low sensitivity, or whether patients with more social issues are missing appointments. Additionally, patients may not wish to honestly discuss social issues in this setting. Screening time was generally higher when using an interpreter, as expected. Follow-up data will determine the rate at which referred patients make contact with resources to address SDH to clarify the cost-benefit ratio of performing this screening.
PICC-ING UP THE PIECES: PICC LINE USE IN PEOPLE WHO INJECT DRUGS (PWID) WITH INFECTIVE ENDOCARDITIS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Patrick Dicken; Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA.
Introduction: This literature review explores the complexities of using Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) lines in PWID with complex infections such as infectious endocarditis (IE). It examines the epidemiology, clinical indications, associated risks (such as infections and mechanical complications), and analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of existing epidemiological research.
Harm reduction strategies, such as safe injection practices and needle exchange programs, are discussed, with a focus on tailoring interventions using the Transtheoretical Model and Motivational Interviewing. Psychosocial factors like stigma, mental health, and being unhoused are explored for their impact on healthcare access and treatment adherence. The review also addresses healthcare
74
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software