Statements about building walls, deportation and denying services to undocumented immigrants made during President Trump’s presidential campaign and presidency may induce fear in Latino populations and create barriers to their health care access. To assess how these statements relate to undocumented Latino immigrants’ (UDLI) and Latino legal residents/citizens’ (LLRC) perceptions of safety and their presentations for emergency care, we conducted surveys of adult patients at three county emergency departments (EDs) in California from June 2017 to December 2018. Of 1,684 patients approached, 1,337 (79.4%) agreed to participate: 34.3% UDLI, 36.9% LLRC, and 29.8% non-Latino legal residents/citizens (NLRC). The vast majority of UDLI (95%), LLRC (94%) and NLRC (85%) had heard statements about immigrants. Most UDLI (89%), LLRC (88%) and NLRC (87%) either thought that these measures were being enacted now or will be enacted in the future. Most UDLI and half of LLRC reported that these statements made them feel unsafe living in the US, 75% (95% CI 70–80%) and 51% (95% CI 47–56%), respectively. More UDLI reported that these statements made them afraid to come to the ED (24%, 95% CI 20–28%) vs LLRC (4.4%, 95% CI 3–7%) and NLRC (3.5%, 95% CI 2–6%); 55% of UDLI with this fear stated it caused them to delay coming to the ED (median delay 2–3 days). The vast majority of patients in our California EDs have heard statements during the 2016 presidential campaign or from President Trump about measures against undocumented immigrants, which have induced worry and safety concerns in both UDLI and LLRC patients. Exposure to these statements was also associated with fear of accessing emergency care in some UDLIs. Given California’s sanctuary state status, these safety concerns and ED access fears may be greater in a nationwide population of Latinos.

Introduction: Our objective was to determine the proportion of patients in our emergency department (ED) who are unhoused or marginally housed and when they typically present to the ED. Methods: We surveyed patients in an urban, safety-net ED from June-August 2018, using a sampling strategy that met them at all times of day, every day of the week. Patients used two social needs screening tools with additional questions on housing during sampling shifts representing two full weeks. Housing status was determined using items validated for housing stability, including PRAPARE, the Accountable Health Communities Survey, and items from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Propensity scores estimated differences among respondents and non-respondents. Results: Of those surveyed, 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-38) identified as homeless and 28% (95% CI, 25-31) as unstably housed. Respondents and non-respondents were similar by propensity score. The average cumulative number of homeless and unstably housed patients arriving per daily 8-hour window peaks at 7 AM, with 46% (95% CI, 29-64) of the daily aggregate of those reporting homelessness and 44% (95% CI, 24-64) with unstable housing presenting over the next eight hours. Conclusion: The ED represents a low-barrier contact point for reaching individuals experiencing housing challenges, who may interact rarely with other institutions. The current prevalence of homelessness and housing instability among urban ED patients may be substantially higher than reported in historical and national-level statistics. Housing services offered within normal business hours would reach a meaningful number of those who are unhoused or marginally housed [West J Emerg Med. 2021;22(2)204-212.] significantly elevated rates of chronic disease, disability, and infection, making homelessness an issue of profound concern in public health and for health systems. 2-4 From a health systems standpoint, individuals experiencing homelessness have higher rates of emergency department (ED) utilization compared to those who are housed. 5-7 Previous data suggest that

Background: Housing status and additional social determinants of health are important data for clinicians and policy makers to design and implement effective interventions for emergency department (ED) patients with unhealthy alcohol use (UAU). Methods: We surveyed patients in an urban, safety-net ED from June to August 2018. UAU was assessed by a validated single-item screening question endorsed by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Housing status was assessed using items validated for housing stability. Results: Seven hundred fifty-eight patients completed the survey (60% response rate), and 296 (39%; 95% confidence interval: 36%-43%) reported UAU. Patients with and without UAU had the same rates of ED visits (median 2, interquartile range: 1-4; P = 0.69) and hospitalizations (median 0, interquartile range: 0-0; P = 0.31) in the 12 months before index visit. Patients with UAU were more likely to lack stable housing compared to patients without UAU (69% vs 59%; P = 0.006). Illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse was more common in patients with UAU compared to those without UAU (29% vs 14%, P < 0.001; and 18% vs 10%; P < 0.001, respectively). Only 60 (20.3%) of the 296 patients with UAU had a documented diagnosis of UAU in the medical record. Conclusions: UAU is common in the general ED patient population and usually not clinically recognized. Patients with UAU have high rates of homelessness and co-occurring substance use. Future studies should consider strategies to incorporate social determinants of health and harm reduction treatments into ED-based interventions for UAU.

No abstract