Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs. METHODS:Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams. RESULTS:108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams. CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB), a monthly injectable long-acting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, has not been studied for use in corrections facilities. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare treatment retention following release from jail among adults receiving daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SLB) vs those receiving XRB. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This open-label, randomized comparative effectiveness study included 52 incarcerated adults in New York City observed for 8 weeks postrelease between June 2019 and May 2020. Participants were soon-to-be-released volunteers from 1 men's and 1 women's jail facility who had OUDs already treated with SLB. Follow-up treatment was received at a primary care clinic in Manhattan. Data were analyzed between June 2020 and December 2020. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:XRB treatment was offered prior to release and continued monthly through 8 weeks after release. SLB participants continued to receive daily directly observed in-jail SLB administration, were provided a 7-day SLB supply at jail release, and followed up at a designated clinic (or other preferred clinics). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Buprenorphine treatment retention at 8 weeks postrelease. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 52 participants were randomized 1:1 to XRB (26 participants) and SLB (26 participants). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (10.0) years; 45 participants (87%) were men; and 40 (77%) primarily used heroin prior to incarceration. Most participants (30 [58%]) reported prior buprenorphine use; 18 (35%) reported active community buprenorphine treatment prior to jail admission. Twenty-one of 26 assigned to XRB received 1 or more XRB injection prior to release; 3 initiated XRB postrelease; and 2 did not receive XRB. Patients in the XRB arm had fewer jail medical visits compared with daily SLB medication administration (mean [SD] visits per day: XRB, 0.11 [0.03] vs SLB, 1.06 [0.08]). Community buprenorphine treatment retention at week 8 postrelease was 18 participants in the XRB group (69.2%) vs 9 in the SLB group (34.6%), and rates of opioid-negative urine tests were 72 of 130 tests in the XRB group (55.3%) and 50 of 130 tests in the SLB group (38.4%). There were no differences in rates of serious adverse events, no overdoses, and no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:XRB was acceptable among patients currently receiving SLB, and patients had fewer in-jail clinic visits and increased community buprenorphine treatment retention when compared with standard daily SLB treatment. These results support wider use and further study of XRB as correctional and reentry OUD treatment. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03604159.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM OR QUESTION (ONE SENTENCE): In order to describe quality improvement (QI) methods for health systems, we report on 10-years of using Unannounced Standardized Patient (USP) visits as the core of a program of education, training, and improvement in a system serving vulnerable patients in partnership with an academic medical center. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1: Consider methods for supporting learning healthcare systems LEARNING OBJECTIVES 2: Identify performance data to improve care DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (E.G. INPATIENT VS. OUTPATIENT, PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS): The IOM defines a Learning Healthcare System (LHCS) as one in which science, informatics, incentives and culture are aligned for continuous improvement and innovation and where best practices are seamlessly embedded in the delivery process and new knowledge is captured as an integral by-product of the delivery experience. As essential as electronic health records are to LHCS, such data fail to capture all actionable information needed to sustain learning within complex systems. USPs are trained actors who present to clinics, incognito, to portray standardized chief complaints, histories, and characteristics. We designed and delivered USP visits to two urban, safety net clinics, focusing on assessing physician, team, and clinical micro system functioning. MEASURES OF SUCCESS (DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND/OR QUANTITATIVEMETRICSWHICHWILL BE USEDTOEVALUATE PROGRAM/INTERVENTION): Behaviorally anchored assessments are used to assess core clinical skills (e.g., communication, information gathering, patient education, adherence to guidelines, patient centeredness, and patient activation). Team functioning assessments include professionalism and coordination. Micro system assessment focuses on safety issues like identity confirmation, hand washing, and navigation. Data from these visits has been provided to the residency, primary care teams, and to leadership and have been used to drive education, team training, and QI. FINDINGS TO DATE (IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO STATE FINDINGS WILL BE DISCUSSED): 1111 visits have been sent to internal medicine and primary care residents and their teams/clinics. At the resident level, needs for additional education and training in depression management, opioid prescribing, smoking cessation, and patient activation were identified and informed education. Chart reviews found substantial variation in ordering of labs and tests. At the team level, USPs uncovered needs for staff training, enhanced communication, and better processes for eliciting and documenting Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). Audit/feedback reports on provider responses to embedded SDoH combined with targeted education/resources, were associated with increased rates of eliciting and effectively responding to SDoH. In the early COVID wave, USPs tested clinic response to a potentially infectious patient. Currently, USPs are being deployed to understand variability in patients' experience of telemedicine given the rapid transformation to this modality. Finally, generalizable questions about underlying principles of medical education and quality improvement are being asked & answered using USP data to foster deeper understanding of levers for change. KEY LESSONS FOR DISSEMINATION (WHAT CAN OTHERS TAKE AWAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TO THEIR PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY): A comprehensive USP program can provide unique insights for driving QI and innovation and help sustain a LHCS

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.

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the importance of addressing Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), less is known about how physicians elicit, respond to, and act upon their patients' SDoH information. We report on the results of a study that 1) sent Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) with programmed SDoH into clinics to assess whether providers uncovered, explored and acted upon the SDoH, 2) provided audit/feedback reports with educational components to clinical teams, and 3) tracked the impact of that intervention on provider response to SDoH.
METHOD(S): Highly trained USPs (secret shoppers) portrayed six scenarios (fatigue, asthma, Hepatitis B concern, shoulder pain, back pain, well-visit), each with specific housing (overcrowding, late rent, and mold) and social isolation (shyness, recent break up, and anxiety) concerns that they shared if asked broadly about. USPs assessed team and provider SDoH practices (eliciting, acknowledging/exploring, and providing resources and/or referrals). 383 USP visits were made to residents in 5 primary care teams in 2 urban, safety- net clinics. 123 visits were fielded during baseline period (Feb 2017-Jan 2018); 185 visits during intervention period (Jan 2018-Mar 2019) throughout which quarterly audit/feedback reports of the teams' response to the USPs' SDoH and targeted education on SDoH were distributed; and 75 follow-up phase visits were fielded (Apr-Dec 2019). Analyses compared rates of eliciting and responding to SDoH across the 3 periods (chi- square, z-scores). One team, by design, did not receive the intervention and serves as a comparison group.
RESULT(S): Among the intervention teams, the rate of eliciting the housing SDoH increased from 46% at baseline to 59% during the intervention period (p=.045) and also increased, but not significantly, for the social issue (40% to 52%, p=.077). There was a significant increase from baseline to intervention in providing resources/referrals for housing (from 7% to 24%, p=.001) and for social isolation (from 13% to 24%, p=.042) (mostly resources, very few referrals were made). The comparison team's rates followed a different pattern: eliciting the housing issue and the social isolation issue decreased from baseline to the intervention period (housing: 61% to 45%; social isolation: 39% to 33% of visits) and the rate of providing resources/referrals stayed steady at 13% for both. In the cases where SDoH were most clinically relevant, baseline rates of identifying the SDoH were high (>70%) but rates of acting on the SDoH increased significantly from baseline to intervention. Increases seen in the intervention period were not sustained in the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION(S): Giving providers SDoH data along with targeted education was associated with increased but unsustained rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social issues. The USP methodology was an effective means of presenting controlled SDoH and providing audit/feedback data. Ongoing education and feedback may be needed

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the importance of addressing Social Determinants of Health, less is known about how members of the care team respond to patient-volunteered SDoH - especially when the determinant is related to financial insecurity. With increasing calls for universal screening for SDoH - what do teams do when a patient shares a financial concern? We report on the use of Unannounced Standardized Patients (USP) to assess how primary care teams respond to volunteered information about financial insecurity and whether an audit/ feedback intervention (with targeted education included) improved that response.
METHOD(S): Highly trained USPs (secret shoppers) portrayed six common scenarios (fatigue, asthma, Hepatitis B concern, shoulder pain, back pain, well visit). USPs volunteered a financial concern (fear of losing job, challenges with financially supporting parent, trouble meeting rent) to the medical assistant (MA) and then again to their provider and assessed the response of both the MA (did they acknowledge and/ or forward the information to the provider?) and the provider (did they acknowledge/ explore and/or provide resources/referrals?). A total of 383 USP visits were delivered to 5 care teams in 2 safety-net clinics. Providers were medicine residents. 123 visits were fielded during the baseline period (Feb 2017-Jan 2018); 185 visits during the intervention period (Jan 2018-Mar 2019) throughout which quarterly audit/feedback reports of the teams' response to the USPs' SDoH and targeted education on SDoH were distributed. 75 follow-up phase visits were fielded (Apr- Dec 2019). Analyses compared rates of MA and provider response to the volunteered financial insecurity issue across the 3 periods (chi-square, z-scores).
RESULT(S): The baseline rate of responding in some way to the volunteered information was high for both the MA (86% acknowledged) and the providers (100% responded). These overall rates of response did not change substantially or significantly across the three time periods (MA: Intervention period = 87%, Follow- Up period=90%; Provider: Intervention period=98%; Follow-Up period=98%). Rates of acting upon the volunteered information also remained quite consistent across the time periods: from 29 to 35% of MA forwarded the information to the provider across the 3 time periods and from 22 to 28% of providers in each intervention period gave the patient resources or a referral (mostly resources).
CONCLUSION(S): Our findings highlight the importance of patients directly telling team members about a financial concern. Future research should explore whether screening tools are effective in instigating a response. Audit/feedback reports with targeted educational components did not appear to influence the teams' response unlike what we found for housing and social concerns that had to be elicited. Whether this is due to differences in volunteered vs. elicited SDoH or to the nature of the SDoH (financial vs housing/social) warrants further investigation

BACKGROUND: The importance of addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, but less is known about how physicians specifically elicit, respond to, and document these determinants. We sought to describe resident practices when caring for a patient whose SDoH is integral to accurate diagnosis and treatment using Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs).
METHOD(S): USPs were used (n=68) to assess how medicine residents responded to the consistent portrayal of a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her living situation (moldy, dilapidated housing) might be contributing to her symptoms. USPs, or "secret shoppers", were sent to two of New York's safety-net hospitals. Resident practices were assessed by the USP during a post-visit behaviorally-anchored checklist (7 items) and through a systematic chart review (3 items). Checklist items included whether or not a provider explored and fully elicited the USPs concerns, how they responded once shared, and what the provider actually did in response. Chart review items included whether or not a provider documented their patient's housing concerns in the history of present illness (HPI), problem list, or through use of a billingrelated Z-code.
RESULT(S): 68/79 consented residents participated: 11 PGY1 (16%), 31 PGY2 (46%), and 26 PGY3 (38%). 65% (44/68) of residents elicited the patient's housing SDoH and of those, 75% (33/44) responded by acknowledging/exploring and providing notes/practical support. 30% (10/33) connected the patient to informative resources or direct referral. Less than half (14/33; 42%) of those who acknowledge/explored documented appropriately in the EMR. No residents documented housing in the problem list or with a housing-related ICD10 Z-code. Of the 14 high performers, 6 successfully elicited, acknowledged, and documented housing concerns for one of our other five SDoH cases. More than half (55%) of the residents who elicited housing information connected the mold to the asthma exacerbation as a possible trigger, either during clinical interaction or in documentation. All but one (93%) of those who el icited, acknowledged, and documented made this connection.
CONCLUSION(S): Using USPs to directly observe resident practice behaviors in gathering information about, documenting and taking action on a consistently portrayed SDoH case closely linked to clinical symptoms is the first piece of the puzzle needed to better understand education and training that prepares physicians to address SDoH. Our study identifies practice gaps at all stages - adequately collecting information, understanding the clinical/ treatment consequences of, effectively responding to needs, and in documentation of SDoH. Future research should explore the influence of the clinical microsystem (e.g., SDoH screening tools, available resources and referrals, and workflows) on physician SDoH-related practices

BACKGROUND: There's been a recent shift toward addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) during the clinical encounter through discussion and documentation. SDoH documentation in the problem list and through billing-related z-code use is necessary for accurate, individual patient and population level tracking andmay improve quality of care.We sought to better understand if/how providers document their patient's SDoH when elicited during a clinical visit.
METHOD(S): Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) were sent to two safety-net clinics to assess how medicine residents care for a new patient presenting with one of six unique chief complaints, and accompanying underlying financial, housing, and social concerns. USPs assessed resident practices after the encounter through a behaviorally anchored checklist and systematic chart review. USPs volunteered financial concerns while housing insecurity and social isolation needed to be elicited by the provider. Checklist items assessed if the USP was able to fully disclose their SDoH to the provider. Provider documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) in one of three spaces: the history of present illness (HPI), the problem list, or through use of a social determinant-specific Zcode was examined when a USP was able to share their concerns.
RESULT(S): 384 USP visits were sent to medical residents from 2017 to 2019. USPs were able to share their financial concerns during 84% of the encounters, but were less likely to be able to share their housing or social concerns with providers (35% and 28%, respectively). Documentation in the HPI and treatment list remained low across cases (<15%) and only one Z-code was used across all visits. On an individual case level, providers addressed housing insecurity most frequently in the asthma case (discussion 65%; documentation: HPI 39%, Plan 16%) and social isolation in the fatigue case (discussion 57%; documentation: HPI 49%, Plan 2%). Providers were least likely to discuss and document SDoH for patients presenting with acute pain.
CONCLUSION(S): In clinical scenarios where SDoH concerns were elicited, residents documented SDoH in less than half of visits. Omission of SDoH not only effects clinical care but also panel management and SDoH population-level estimations. New education strategies are needed to address resident's ability to elicit and accurately document SDoH

Corrigendum to: Jeffrey A. Wilhite*, Khemraj Hardowar, Harriet Fisher, Barbara Porter, Andrew B. Wallach, Lisa Altshuler, Kathleen Hanley, Sondra R. Zabar and Colleen C. Gillespie. Clinical problem solving and social determinants of health: a descriptive study using unannounced standardized patients to directly observe how resident physicians respond to social determinants of health. Diagnosis 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3, pages 313-324. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10&d=DwIBAg&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedeElZfc04rx3ExJHeIIZuCs&r=CY_mkeBghQnUPnp2mckgsNSbUXISJaiBQUhM-Uz9W58&m=TyoCBAKzCpBZ4-uIICybN67eGKr9ePdBC-WexDhSuSM&s=-H9hUl6CWWk07_DiPQFbSmQyI2qWxw4tQLZIEBIpIVY&e= . 1515/dx-2020-0002. Unfortunately, a typographic error in the results portion of the abstract was missed during final stages of proofing and editing. The count of full elicitors should read as 38/68 rather than 28/68, and the % of negative elicitors is 23%. The corrected results read as follows: 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 - 23%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors - 56%; 38/68).
Copyright