Point-of-care social needs screening for patients with cancer undergoing active treatment: A pilot initiative.

286 Background: Patients with cancer undergoing active treatment often face social needs including housing, transportation, food, and financial challenges. Social needs are associated with delays in care, high rates of psychosocial distress, and worse survival. However, screening for social needs does not happen systematically. In this pilot quality improvement initiative, we sought to 1) assess the feasibility of point-of-care screening during infusion visits and 2) explore the impact of screening on receipt of social resources. Methods: This initiative took place at the Kaiser Permanente (KP) San Francisco Cancer Center between 7/15/2024-8/23/2024. All patients with a cancer diagnosis who presented to the infusion center for a cancer-directed therapy were offered a one-page social needs screener by the front desk staff upon check-in. The screener was offered in English, Spanish, and Written Chinese. Patients who screened positive for a social need were referred to a cancer center social worker for resource navigation with urgency depending on level of risk. Completion of social work referral within two months of screening and receipt of social or financial resources within six months of screening were tracked by the clinical team. Results: Of 244 patients who presented to the infusion center, 156 (64%) filled the social screener out completely, 51 (21%) filled it out partially, 2 ( < 1%) indicated the questions were not relevant, and 35 (14%) did not return the screener or returned it blank. Mean age was 63.8 (SD 13.9), 58% of patients were female, 54% were non-white, and 83% spoke English as their primary language. There were no differences by gender, race, ethnicity, or language in likelihood of completing the screener. Of the 156 patients who completed the screener, 52 (33%) screened positive for a social need. The most common need was housing (n = 34, 22%), followed by financial (n = 33, 21%), food (n = 27, 17%), and transportation (n = 17, 11%). Of those who screened positive, 43 (83%) met or communicated over messaging with a social worker and 30 (58%) received information on resources or referrals to programs (total of 56 resources discussed/referrals made). Documentation of receipt of resources was not consistent; however, the most common resources received were KP’s copay assistance program (n = 8), disability benefits (n = 12) and foundation/transportation support (n = 2). Conclusions: Point of care screening for social needs led to high response rates, including among patients belonging to racial/ethnic minorities and non-English speaking patients. Prevalence of social needs was high. Screening led to successful connection with social workers and receipt of information on available resources; however, documentation of actual resource receipt was limited. Future work should address this gap and test implementation of point-of-care needs screening across diverse clinical settings.