Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The transition from medical school to residency is characterized by an abrupt transition of learning needs and goals. Coaching is a promising intervention to support individual learning and growth trajectories of learners. It is uncommon for medical school faculty to have undergone training as coaches. We explored our faculty's perceptions and skills after instituting a new coaching program.
METHOD(S): Faculty advisors (N=12) and GME (N=16) participated in a coaching development program and in community of practice meetings where challenging coaching scenarios were shared. GME faculty also participated in a Group Objective Structured Clinical Exam (GOSCE) to practice and receive feedback on their skills. Peer-faculty observers and resident raters used behaviorally grounded checklists to assess faculty performance. We conducted 2 focus groups: 1) UME advisors engaged in longitudinal coaching (n=9) and 2) GME faculty participating in the coaching development program (n=8) to better understand how faculty make sense of and put into practice these new coaching roles and skills.
RESULT(S): Simple thematic coding showed that both groups emphasized the blurring of the many roles they serve when interacting with trainees and struggled with recognizing both which hat to wear (role to adopt) and which skills to call upon in specific situations. UME advisors who have dedicated advising/coaching roles reported assuming multiple roles at different times with their same students. Many of the GME coaches serve as Associate Program Directors, and described adopting a coaching frame of reference (mentality) and requiring external reinforcement for coaching skills. Some reported realizing after the fact that coaching would have been a valuable approach. Faculty newer to their role felt more successful in engaging in coaching mindset and coaching. Faculty were curious about how trainees would feel about this approach and anticipated that some would appreciate this more than others. 12 faculty participated in a three station Coaching GOSCE. Both resident raters and faculty peer raters suggested faculty coaches were able to establish trust and engage in authentic listening. Coaches negotiated the tension between empathetic listening with supporting goal-setting. Residents provided slightly lower ratings than peer observers on coaches' ability to ask questions and assume a coachee- focused agenda.
CONCLUSION(S): Medical educators may benefit from obtaining coaching skills, but deliberate training in how these skills complement, and differ, from existing skills requires both didactic and experiential learning. Cultivating a community of practice and offering opportunities for deliberate practice, observation and feedback is essential for medical educators to achieve mastery as coaches. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Identify and perform appropriate learning activities to guide personal and professional development (PBL) LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Understand and apply core longitudinal coaching skills (Professionalism)

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems rose to the challenges of COVID-19 by creating or expanding telehealth programs to ensure that patients could access care from home. Traditionally, though, physicians receive limited formal telemedicine training, which made preparedness for this transition uneven. We designed a survey for General Internal Medicine (GIM) physicians within our diverse health system to describe experiences with providing virtual patient care; with the ultimate goal of identifying actionable recommendations for health system leaders and medical educators.
METHOD(S): Surveys were sent to all faculty outpatient GIM physicians working at NYU Langone Health, NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue and Gouverneur, and the VA NY Harbor Health System (n=378) in May & June of 2020. Survey items consisted of Likert and open-ended questions on experience with televisits (13 items) and attitudes toward care (24 items). Specific questions covered barriers to communication over remote modalities.
RESULT(S): 195/378 (52%) responded to the survey. 96% of providers reported having problems establishing a connection from the patient's end while 84% reported difficultly establishing connection on the provider's end. Using interpreter services over the phone was also problematic for providers, with 38% reporting troubles. Regarding teamness, 35% of physicians found it difficult to share information with healthcare team members during virtual visits and 42% found it difficult to work collaboratively with team members, both when compared to in-person visits. When subdivided, 24% of private and 40% of public providers found info sharing more difficult (p<0.04). 31% of private providers and 45% of public found team collaboration more difficult (ns). Physicians also identified challenges in several domains including physical exams (97%), establishing relationships with new patients (74%), taking a good history (48%), and educating patients (35%). In thematic analysis of open-ended comments, themes emerged related to technological challenges, new systems issues, and new patient/provider communication experiences. Positives noted by physicians included easier communication with patients who often struggle with keeping in-person appointments, easier remote monitoring, and a more thorough understanding of patients' home lives.
CONCLUSION(S): Provider experience differences were rooted in the type of technology employed. Safety-net physicians conducted mostly telephonic visits while private outpatient physicians utilized video visits, despite both using the same brand of electronic medical record system. As we consider a new normal and prolonged community transmission of COVID-19, it is essential to establish telemedicine training, tools, and protocols that meet the needs of both patients and physicians across diverse settings. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Describe challenges and barriers to effective communication and clinical skill utilization during televisits LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Conceptualize recommendations for educational curricula and health service improvement areas

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overwhelmed hospitals at various stages of the pandemic, leading to intense focus on availability of inpatient resources and less attention to primary care contributions. There is clear evidence that medical comorbidities, social determinants of health, and individual behaviors such as mask-wearing affect COVID-19 outcomes. By managing medical comorbidities and modifying social behaviors, it is plausible that primary care physicians (PCPs) improve COVID-19 outcomes. Socioeconomic status (SES) and environment likely affect the number of PCPs and their effectiveness in a community. Notwithstanding these factors, we hypothesize that PCPs contribute to healthier communities and that this will correlate with decreased COVID-19 cases and mortality.
METHOD(S): We used three surrogate measures of PCP effectiveness: PCP rate (#PCPs/population), flu vaccination rate, and number of preventable hospital stays. We merged county-level data from USA Facts, the New York Times masking survey, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Data, and the Health Resources & Services Administration. We ran multiple linear regression models to measure the contributed variance in COVID-19 cases or deaths of the measures of PCP effectiveness after adjusting for age, race, economic, and environmental factors. A second model also measured the effect of PCP rates on mask adherence adjusted for the same confounders. Data were merged and analyzed using SPSS v.25.
RESULT(S): Data were available from 2957 of 3143 county equivalents. There were an average of 55 PCPs per 100,000 population. By December 27, 2020 there were 18,750,038 COVID-19 cases and 325,507 deaths nationally. In multiple linear regression models, PCP rate (beta=-0.07), flu vaccination rate (beta=-0.067), and preventable hospital stays (beta=0.136) were all significant (p<=0.001) contributors to the variance seen in COVID-19 cases after adjusting for confounding variables. Similarly, PCP rate (beta=-0.056, p=0.003), flu vaccination rate (beta=-0.006, p=0.001), and preventable hospital stays (beta=0.166, p<0.001) were significant contributors to the variance seen in COVID-19 deaths. PCP rate was also found to be a significant contributor to variance in mask adherence (beta=0.078, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION(S): All measures of PCP effectiveness were significantly correlated with lower COVID-19 cases and deaths and higher self-reported mask adherence even after accounting for SES and environmental factors. The pandemic has exposed an American healthcare system that is detrimentally more reactive than preventative. Our study demonstrates the modest-but significant- success of prevention efforts by PCPs. We hope it will serve to increase resource allocation and attention toward the primary care sector of the healthcare workforce. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Identify how increasing resource allocation to primary care may improve systems-based practice. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Recognize the role that primary care physicians may play in improving COVID-19 outcomes

BACKGROUND: Primary care (PC) residency training is a period that provides opportunity to develop skills required for independent practice. Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs), or secret shoppers, are a controlled measure of clinical skills in actual practice. We sought to describe differences in core clinical communication skills over the last decade for PC residents.
METHOD(S): USPs presented as a new patient for a comprehensive visit while portraying one of six unique, outpatient cases (with either chronic or acute symptomology). Actors received extensive training to ensure accurate case portrayal. Each completed a post-visit, behaviorally anchored checklist (not, partly, or well done) in order to provide extensive, actionable feedback. A standardized checklist was used, consisting of individual items across domains including information gathering, relationship development, patient education, activation and satisfaction. Chronbach's alpha for domains ranged from 0.62- 0.89. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain and compared by year for all learners and by PGY within year for the primary care (PC) residency. Differences were assessed using ANOVA. Case portrayal accuracy was ensured using audio tape review.
RESULT(S): 396 visits were conducted with PC residents in our urban, safetynet hospital system between 2013 and 2020. While looking across the 8 years, there was variation in mean scores per domain, though Kruskal-Wallis H test did not show any statistical difference. Relationship development and info gathering were the highest rated skills, at 75% and 76% well done, respectively, on average. Patient satisfaction and activation remained uniformly low across years, with scores averaging 36% and 39% well done, respectively. Multi-variate analysis showed no significant changes across domains by cohort (grad year) and PGY levels. Further, there were no significant differences by PGY year or cohort in terms of scoring using a two-way ANOVA, though there was a slight upward trend in relationship development skills since 2017 for all PGY levels. There were similar trends in most domains, with 2020 scores being higher than previous years. There were no significant differences across domains while looking at PGY1 learners only.
CONCLUSION(S): While there were no significant differences in scores, we can postulate that PC residents enter the residency with consistent foundational communication skills, possibly attributable to training. We elected to use the visit itself as the unit of analysis, which does not allow us to tease out differences in individual learners. We also have small sample sizes for earlier years of the USP visit program, which may hinder results. Regardless, results warrant further research in order to gain a more thorough understanding, possibly in relation to curricular trends. Further study will look at individual resident differences and ideally provide insight into curricular improvement areas. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Describe assessment measures LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Explore clinical competency

BACKGROUND: Performance-based assessment & feedback during medical training is essential for a successful transition before moving onto residency and independent clinical practice. Learners at New York University's School of Medicine (NYUSOM) participate in a routine comprehensive clinical skills examination (CCSE) that takes place at the tail end of medical school. During this exam, learners interact with standardized patients (SPs) and are rated on specific skills using a standardized checklist, measuring important clinical skills domains. NYUSOM has utilized the same assessment tool since 2005. To date, there is limited evidence on the tool's validity and ability to differentiate among students. We sought to provide evidence for it's reliability, validity, and generalizability.
METHOD(S): 1157 learners participated in the CCSE from 2011-2019 and were included in the analysis. Communication domain items assessed included patient education (3 items), relationship development (4 items), information gathering (6 items) and organization/ time management (3 items). Items were scored using a 3-point behaviorally-anchored scale (not, partly, or well done). In order to determine the degree to which the data mapped onto our theoretically-informed communication domains, we conducted a four-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) allowing for factors to correlate (oblique rotation) and using means and variance adjusted weighted-least squares estimation (WLSMV) in order to account for the ordered categorical nature of the communication items. Model fit was assessed using root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08, comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.95, and standardized root mean square error (SRMR) <0.08.
RESULT(S): The model fit the data using RMSEA (0.04), CFI (0.98), and SRMR (0.05). All factors were significantly correlated with one another (p < 0.05), with the largest correlation between patient education and organization/ time management (0.86), and information gathering (0.77). The smallest correlation was between organization/ time management and information gathering (0.66). All items (factor loadings) significantly loaded on the factors they measured. Only one item had an insignificant threshold loading between partly and well done, suggesting this part of the response scale may be hard for SPs to differentiate between students with varying ability on this item. Each factor had at least one item that had a factor loading less than 0.7.
CONCLUSION(S): The analysis suggests each item on the communication checklist significantly measures domains they were designed to measure, and that items can be summated to compute overall scores. Domains had one item with a lower loading than the rest, suggesting these items may be measuring something different. Follow up measurement modeling and profile analysis is the next logical step in determining if there is an important sub-domain that identifies a student group operating differentially. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Understand clinical communication LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Describe communication measures

Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provide a controlled, simulated setting for competency assessments, while unannounced simulated patients (USPs) measure competency in situ or real-world settings. This exploratory study describes differences in primary care residents' skills when caring for the same simulated patient case in OSCEs versus in a USP encounter. Data reported describe a group of residents (n=20) who were assessed following interaction with the same simulated patient case in two distinct settings: an OSCE and a USP visit at our safety-net clinic from 2009 to 2010. In both scenarios, the simulated patient presented as an asthmatic woman with limited understanding of illness management. Residents were rated through a behaviourally anchored checklist on visit completion. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain and compared using paired sample t-tests. Residents performed significantly better with USPs on 7 of 10 items and in two of three aggregate assessment domains (p<0.05). OSCE structure may impede assessment of activation and treatment planning skills, which are better assessed in real-world settings. This exploration of outcomes from our two assessments using the same clinical case lays a foundation for future research on variation in situated performance. Using both assessments during residency will provide a more thorough understanding of learner competency.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To present the results of a survey of the Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS) investigators regarding barriers to the enrollment of study participants and approaches to overcome them. METHODS:ZEDS is a multicenter randomized clinical trial supported by the National Eye Institute to determine whether prolonged suppressive valacyclovir reduces the complications of herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO), relative to placebo. Enrollment of study participants is currently far below expectations. An institutional review board-approved anonymous internet survey was conducted of ZEDS investigators to study their experiences and opinions regarding barriers to enrollment and various approaches to overcome them. RESULTS:The overall survey response rate was 54% (79/145). Only 29% (23/79) agreed that it is easy to enroll study participants. Regarding patient barriers, 69% (55/79) agreed that HZO patients want to be treated with antiviral medication and 69% (54/78) agreed that HZO patients on antivirals do not want to be randomized. Regarding personal barriers facing investigators, 91% (72/79) agreed that antivirals are effective and 100% that the research questions ZEDS is designed to answer are very important. Fewer than 30% of respondents believed that steps taken to increase enrollment have been very helpful. Over half (54%, 42/78) believed that advertising on social media would be moderately or very effective. CONCLUSIONS:Belief among ZEDS investigators that antivirals are effective, and the preference of patients to be treated with antivirals rather than be randomized in ZEDS, are major barriers to enrollment. New approaches to overcoming barriers are necessary to develop an evidence-based standard of care for treatment of HZO.

PURPOSE:To describe the effect of transgender health-related objective structured clinical examination (THOSCE) case exposure on learner activation regarding gender-affirming care. METHOD:A modified grounded theory approach was applied to identify the educational value of THOSCE cases. Focus groups with current and former primary care internal medicine residents who participated in THOSCE cases were conducted in 2018-2019. Transcripts were analyzed and coded until saturation to identify themes. RESULTS:Eighteen (72%) eligible learners participated in the focus groups. Themes were identified relating to gender-affirming care, and modified grounded theory analysis was used as a framework to organize the themes into 4 stages of learner activation: (1) believing the learner role is important, (2) having the confidence and knowledge necessary to take action, (3) taking action to maintain and improve one's skills, and (4) staying the course even under stress. CONCLUSIONS:Residents were grateful for the opportunity to practice the skills involved in transgender health in a simulation. Many felt unprepared and were concerned about how they were perceived by the standardized patient and faculty. Residents identified feeling more comfortable with gender-affirming language in the inpatient setting, which may provide an opportunity for learning in the future. Residents identified the psychosocial skills of gender-affirming care as more directly relevant while biomedical aspects of gender-affirming care seemed less accessible to residents, given the lack of outpatient experience. The authors propose a staged approach to teaching the skills of gender-affirming care using simulation to address learners of all levels.

Objectives While the need to address patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, less is known about physicians' actual clinical problem-solving when it comes to SDoH. Do physicians include SDoH in their assessment strategy? Are SDoH incorporated into their diagnostic thinking and if so, do they document as part of their clinical reasoning? And do physicians directly address SDoH in their "solution" (treatment plan)? Methods We used Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) to assess internal medicine residents' clinical problem solving in response to a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her moldy apartment is contributing to symptoms - a case designed to represent a clear and direct link between a social determinant and patient health. Residents' clinical practices were assessed through a post-visit checklist and systematic chart review. Patterns of clinical problem solving were identified and then explored, in depth, through review of USP comments and history of present illness (HPI) and treatment plan documentation. Results Residents fell into three groups when it came to clinical problem-solving around a housing trigger for asthma: those who failed to ask about housing and therefore did not uncover mold as a potential trigger (neglectors - 21%; 14/68); those who asked about housing in negative ways that prevented disclosure and response (negative elicitors - 24%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors - 56%; 28/68). Of the full elicitors 53% took no further action, 26% only documented the mold; and 21% provided resources/referral. In-depth review of USP comments/explanations and residents' notes (HPI, treatment plan) revealed possible influences on clinical problem solving. Failure to ask about housing was associated with both contextual factors (rushed visit) and interpersonal skills (not fully engaging with patient) and with possible differences in attention ("known" vs. unknown/new triggers, usual symptoms vs. changes, not attending to relocation, etc.,). Use of close-ended questions often made it difficult for the patient to share mold concerns. Negative responses to sharing of housing information led to missing mold entirely or to the patient not realizing that the physician agreed with her concerns about mold. Residents who fully elicited the mold situation but did not take action seemed to either lack knowledge or feel that action on SDoH was outside their realm of responsibility. Those that took direct action to help the patient address mold appeared to be motivated by an enhanced sense of urgency. Conclusions Findings provide unique insight into residents' problem solving processes including external influences (e.g., time, distractions), the role of core communication and interpersonal skills (eliciting information, creating opportunities for patients to voice concerns, sharing clinical thinking with patients), how traditional cognitive biases operate in practice (premature closure, tunneling, and ascertainment bias), and the ways in which beliefs about expectancies and scope of practice may color clinical problem-solving strategies for addressing SDoH.