Skip to main content

Can anyone point me to an existing model for integrating ACE into a primary care setting? From screening to intervention what examples are there of either small clinics or large healthcare organizations integrating ACE into their primary care systems and services? What screening tools are used and if applicable how do they intervene (internally and/or via external partners)?

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi Marcus, Check out the Centre for Youth Wellness and Nadine Burke Harris’s book The Deepest Well.  She includes an example of the screen they developed for primary care.   I’m in Canada but have been watching California make great strides in this area with Burke Harris as Surgeon General.  Allocated 500 million to train doctors and others on screening.  Wow!  

you could also refer patients' families to www.griefrecoverymethod.com, where they could find community-based GRM groups or one/ones for adults (with some specialists able to provide the program to youth under 18), AND to refer adults who care for, or are responsible for working with children and youth, to the Helping Children with Loss Program.  These programs are available throughout the US - and local providers can be found by using the online directory - by zip code or city/town.  The HCWL program is less frequently provided, but all Certified Grief Recovery Method Specialists are also certified to provide the program.  So if none appear initially when doing your search, you could contact the specialists you do find, and ask them to assist you in providing the HCWL program.  I'd also be glad to help you find someone in your area - or find other options - for providing this program in your area.  I can be reached at lhall@griefrecoverymethod.com or at 541-389-7906.  It would be wonderful if physicians, clinics, counselors, school personnel, youth leaders and others knew more about the GRM and HCWL programs and would intentionally make referrals to these programs.  They are generally very inexpensive, and as "educational programs" do not carry the stigma of "counseling,"  thereby being more likely accepted by parents, families and other youth-serving professionals.    

I really appreciate this forum - and the opportunity to tell you about the GRM and HCWL programs.  Thank you, Lois Hall

Marcus,

A colleague and I have been screening for ACEs in our internal medicine practice for a year. There's more written on addressing ACEs in a pediatric setting, such as the Center for Youth Wellness mentioned above, with very little in the literature for adult patient settings. We use the traditional ACE Questionnaire, though look at it more as a conversation starter as to how one's childhood was. We feel it has been very successful doing such screening, and the patient response has been overwhelmingly positive, with essentially no negatives. A few caveats are that I've yet to find a way to do the screening and follow up discussion without taking a longer than scheduled visit (I typically go 45-50 min, while the slots are 30 min); it's hard for me not to stop talking, as it's typically such a powerful educational opportunity, and the patients are almost always into it (if they aren't I keep the discussion short). Another very important point is that screening needs be done in a trauma informed way, with the patient feeling it's a safe environment. If I sense someone is in a anxious state, I won't screen. That being said, there are several studies looking at medical assistants, or other non-clinical staff, giving out questionnaires to parents of pediatric patients, and the results show the high majority of parents appreciate the screening. I'm not sure how well this translates to adult patients.

Hi, Marcus!

In addition to the Center for Youth Wellness and the National Council on Behavioral Health, I would recommend that you check out the Trauma-Informed Implementation Resource Center from the Center for Healthcare Strategies: https://www.traumainformedcare.chcs.org/

Additionally, we have been working with a local Family Medicine Residency Program to implement screening into their work. Our partners have presented a couple of webinars on their process to the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, the recording of the most recent one can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDZCx6-OY0g

Finally, the NPPC also produced a podcast series called Voices from the Field that might be of interest. You can find those anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Congratulations on considering this work - and good luck!

Vanessa Lohf | Wichita State University

Is the goal to simply screen or is it preventing the negative emotional, physical and social outcomes that come from exposure to toxic stress?   That should be a question, I think. 

Jack Schonkoff, one of the authors on the original policy statement about Toxic Stress published in 2012 in Pediatrics, states that we have to be careful about developing biological markers that can be used to identify toxic stress in individuals because of the potential for misuse but a score in an electronic medical chart that is being used as a proxy for a biological marker (the ACE Score), which will not be able to be removed from the medical record once it is there has the potential to be misused too. That’s something that should be considered. 

On average, it will be the poor and disadvantaged in society who will have the highest ACE score and that leaves the poor and disadvantaged the most vulnerable to misuse of this data. 

Last edited by Former Member
Mike Flaningam posted:

Marcus,

A colleague and I have been screening for ACEs in our internal medicine practice for a year. There's more written on addressing ACEs in a pediatric setting, such as the Center for Youth Wellness mentioned above, with very little in the literature for adult patient settings. We use the traditional ACE Questionnaire, though look at it more as a conversation starter as to how one's childhood was. We feel it has been very successful doing such screening, and the patient response has been overwhelmingly positive, with essentially no negatives. A few caveats are that I've yet to find a way to do the screening and follow up discussion without taking a longer than scheduled visit (I typically go 45-50 min, while the slots are 30 min); it's hard for me not to stop talking, as it's typically such a powerful educational opportunity, and the patients are almost always into it (if they aren't I keep the discussion short). Another very important point is that screening needs be done in a trauma informed way, with the patient feeling it's a safe environment. If I sense someone is in a anxious state, I won't screen. That being said, there are several studies looking at medical assistants, or other non-clinical staff, giving out questionnaires to parents of pediatric patients, and the results show the high majority of parents appreciate the screening. I'm not sure how well this translates to adult patients.

This is the way that I feel this is done best. One on one with a patient and the physician who is comfortable with this where there is trust.  And there is no need to be mandated to have a score in the EHR. That just breaks trust for me and how I could feel comfortable introducing this to the patient. I don’t want to be used as a data collector for any purpose besides caring for my patients in a caring and sensitive manner. 

Tina Cain posted:

Is the goal to simply screen or is it preventing the negative emotional, physical and social outcomes that come from exposure to toxic stress?   That should be a question, I think. 

Jack Schonkoff, one of the authors on the original policy statement about Toxic Stress published in 2012 in Pediatrics, states that we have to be careful about developing biological markers that can be used to identify toxic stress in individuals because of the potential for misuse but a score in an electronic medical chart that is being used as a proxy for a biological marker (the ACE Score), which will not be able to be removed from the medical record once it is there has the potential to be misused too. That’s something that should be considered. 

On average, it will be the poor and disadvantaged in society who will have the highest ACE score and that leaves the poor and disadvantaged the most vulnerable to misuse of this data. 

Hi Tina, excellent point. I have seen some information about "allostatic load" - a (developing) battery of biological measures related to the stress response system - providing a potential more personalized/direct measure of the impact toxic stress. If this biological measure can be shown to be a valid measure of the accumulative impact of toxic stress then this could be used to complement an ACE screening (perhaps screening out those for whom ACE has not translated into relative increase in poor health outcomes).

Sample article:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163075/

Laurie Robinson posted:

Hi Marcus, Check out the Centre for Youth Wellness and Nadine Burke Harris’s book The Deepest Well.  She includes an example of the screen they developed for primary care.   I’m in Canada but have been watching California make great strides in this area with Burke Harris as Surgeon General.  Allocated 500 million to train doctors and others on screening.  Wow!  

Thank you! I've added her book to my priority list.

Mike Flaningam posted:

Marcus,

A colleague and I have been screening for ACEs in our internal medicine practice for a year. There's more written on addressing ACEs in a pediatric setting, such as the Center for Youth Wellness mentioned above, with very little in the literature for adult patient settings. We use the traditional ACE Questionnaire, though look at it more as a conversation starter as to how one's childhood was. We feel it has been very successful doing such screening, and the patient response has been overwhelmingly positive, with essentially no negatives. A few caveats are that I've yet to find a way to do the screening and follow up discussion without taking a longer than scheduled visit (I typically go 45-50 min, while the slots are 30 min); it's hard for me not to stop talking, as it's typically such a powerful educational opportunity, and the patients are almost always into it (if they aren't I keep the discussion short). Another very important point is that screening needs be done in a trauma informed way, with the patient feeling it's a safe environment. If I sense someone is in a anxious state, I won't screen. That being said, there are several studies looking at medical assistants, or other non-clinical staff, giving out questionnaires to parents of pediatric patients, and the results show the high majority of parents appreciate the screening. I'm not sure how well this translates to adult patients.

Hi Mike! Thanks so much for sharing your experience with me/us. This gives an insightful window into implementation in primary care and highlights one of the biggest challenges. I am familiar with a program that integrates health coaches with the potential for them taking on more of the individual dialogue and coaching related to positive ACEs, however the vast majority of providers do not have these additional staff. It sounds like any academic detailing or practice facilitation with providers/clinics should include exploring ways to streamline and include other staff in the screening and intervention process.

Add Reply

Copyright ÂĐ 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×