Back

Characterizing emergency clinician engagement with social drivers of health data among patients with opioid use disorder

Molina, M. F.; Pimentel, S. D.; Fenton, C.; Adler-Milstein, J.; Gottlieb, L. M.

2025-12-17 emergency medicine
10.64898/2025.12.15.25342249 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo characterize emergency department (ED) clinician engagement with electronic health record (EHR)-based social drivers of health (SDOH) data; test whether engagement differs in encounters with opioid use disorder (OUD); and, among OUD encounters, assess whether engagement is associated with medications for OUD (MOUD) treatment. Materials and MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of adult ED encounters (January 2023-October 2024). OUD encounters, identified with a structured phenotype, were matched (1:2) to non-OUD encounters. Audit logs captured clinician engagement with structured SDOH questions ("SDOH Wheel"), ICD-10 Z codes in the Problem List, Social History free text, and social work notes. Engagement was any SDOH documentation or review of preexisting SDOH data during the encounter. Logistic regression estimated associations. ResultsAmong 17,103 encounters (5,701 OUD; 11,402 non-OUD), clinician SDOH documentation was rare (<1%). Clinicians most often reviewed Z codes (610/620; 98.4%), followed by the SDOH Wheel (1,103/3,953; 27.9%), social work notes (1,711/10,670; 16.0%), and Social History free text (232/6,942; 3.3%). Engagement occurred in 19.5% of encounters and was higher with OUD (26.6% vs 16.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.91, 95% CI 1.77-2.07). Among OUD encounters, engagement showed no clear association with MOUD (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84-1.47), yet racial and ethnic disparities persisted. DiscussionED clinicians infrequently document but do review structured, accessible SDOH data. Engagement is higher in OUD encounters yet shows no definitive link with MOUD, while disparities persist. Interface designs that surface SDOH and targeted EHR decision support warrant evaluation to inform equitable, time-sensitive ED care.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
35.1%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.0%
3
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.0%
6
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
7
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
8
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.9%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
10
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
12
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
16
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
17
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
19
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
21
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
22
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%