Introduction: Social risks adversely affect health and are associated with increased healthcare utilization and costs. Emergency department (ED) patients have high rates of social risk; however, little is known about best practices for ED-based screening or linkage to community resources. We examined the perspectives of patients and community organizations regarding social risk screening and linkage from the ED. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of ED patients and local community organization staff. Participants completed a brief demographic survey, health literacy assessment, and qualitative interview focused on barriers/facilitators to social risk screening in the ED, and ideas for screening and linkage interventions in the ED. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were identified by consensus. Results: We conducted 22 interviews with 16 patients and six community organization staff. Three categories of themes emerged. The first related to the importance of social risk screening in the ED. The second category encompassed challenges regarding screening and linkage, including fear, mistrust, transmission of accurate information, and time/resource constraints. The third category included suggestions for improvement and program development. Patients had varied preferences for verbal vs electronic strategies for screening. Community organization staff emphasized resource scarcity and multimodal communication strategies. Conclusion: The development of flexible, multimodal, social risk screening tools, and the creation and maintenance of an accurate database of local resources, are strategies that may facilitate improved identification of social risk and successful linkage to available community resources. [West J Emerg Med. 2020;21(4)964-973.] been used to describe these individual-level, adverse social determinants of health. For the purposes of this paper, we will term these "specific adverse social conditions that are associated with poor health" as social risk. 2 Social risks are

Emergency medicine has increasingly focused on addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) in emergency medicine. However, efforts to standardize and evaluate measurement tools and compare results across studies have been limited by the plethora of terms (eg, SDoH, health‐related social needs, social risk) and a lack of consensus regarding definitions. Specifically, the social risks of an individual may not align with the social needs of an individual, and this has ramifications for policy, research, risk stratification, and payment and for the measurement of health care quality. With the rise of social emergency medicine (SEM) as a field, there is a need for a simplified and consistent set of definitions. These definitions are important for clinicians screening in the emergency department, for health systems to understand service needs, for epidemiological tracking, and for research data sharing and harmonization. In this article, we propose a conceptual model for considering SDoH measurement and provide clear, actionable, definitions of key terms to increase consistency among clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

Introduction: Social risks, or adverse social conditions associated with poor health, are prevalent in emergency department (ED) patients, but little is known about how the prevalence of social risk compares to a patient's reported social need, which incorporates patient preference for intervention. The goal of this study was to describe the relationship between social risk and social need, and identify factors associated with differential responses to social risk and social need questions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 48 hours of time-shift sampling in a large urban ED. Consenting patients completed a demographic questionnaire and assessments of social risk and social need. We applied descriptive statistics to the prevalence of social risk and social need, and multivariable logistic regression to assess factors associated with social risk, social need, or both. Results: Of the 269 participants, 100 (37%) reported social risk, 83 (31%) reported social need, and 169 (63%) reported neither social risk nor social need. Although social risk and social need were significantly associated (p < 0.01), they incompletely overlapped. Over 50% in each category screened positive in more than one domain (eg, housing instability, food insecurity). In multivariable models, those with higher education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.24-0.80]) and private insurance (aOR 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.88]) were less likely to report social risk compared to those with lower education and state/public insurance, respectively. Spanish-speakers (aOR 4.07 [95% CI, 1.17-14.10]) and non-Hispanic Black patients (aOR 5.00 [95% CI, 1.91-13.12]) were more likely to report social need, while those with private insurance were less likely to report social need (private vs state/public: aOR 0.13 [95% CI, 0.07-0.26]). Conclusion: Approximately one-third of patients in a large, urban ED screened positive for at least one social risk or social need, with over half in each category reporting risk/need across multiple domains. Different demographic variables were associated with social risk vs social need, suggesting that individuals with social risks differ from those with social needs, and that screening programs should consider including both assessments. [