Faculty Bibliography

Background: Te Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has identifed six core competencies in which trainees are expected to demonstrate profciency. Milestones have been developed to provide a framework for evaluating trainee performance within these competencies. We used an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) focused on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to assess the milestones in gastroenterology (GI) fellows. METHODS: Ten second-year fellows from six GI fellowship programs participated in a four case OSCE. In the "Transition of CareTM case the fellow was to assess a patient's readiness on the planned transition from child-centered to adult-centered care. In the "Shared Decision MakingTM case the fellow was to evaluate a patient with Crohn's disease who would beneft from combination therapy. In the "ER FlareTM case the fellow was to triage and suggest management of a flaring ulcerative colitis patient. In the "IBS in IBDTM case the fellow was asked to discuss irritable bowel syndrome in the context of quiescent IBD. Previously validated OSCE checklists were used to assess the GI fellows' performance using a 3-and 5-point behaviorally-anchored Likert Scale. Checklists were scored by the standardized patient. Checklist items were mapped to appropriate ACGME milestones by a GI medical educator. Scores within each milestone were normalized on a scale from 0-9 as utilized by the ACGME in the Next Accreditation System milestone initiative. Fellows were provided feedback on their performance. RESULTS: Te majority of fellows scored between 6 and 9 in the milestones assessing patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (Prof), and systems-based practice (SBP). Composite average scores for all participants were as follows: PC1 7. 7, PC2 6. 9, MK1 6. 9, MK2 7. 0, ICS1 7. 4, Prof1 7. 6, Prof3 6. 9, and SBP4 6. 4. Fellows scored highest in the "Shared Decision MakingTM case and scored lowest in the "Transitions of CareTM case. CONCLUSION(S): In this OSCE GI fellows performed well in the majority of milestones evaluated, however areas of less optimal performance were identifed, providing areas for future focus in fellow training. Te OSCE is a well-validated standardized tool for evaluating trainees, and with appropriate mapping of checklists to ACGME milestones, it can serve as an objective method to assess GI fellows' progress in the core competencies

OBJECTIVE: We developed a series of orthopedic unannounced standardized patient (USP) encounters for the purpose of objective assessment of residents during clinic encounters. DESIGN: Consecutive case-series. SETTING: NYU-Langone Multi-center Academic University Hospital System. PARTICIPANTS: NYU-Langone/Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopedic Surgery residents; 48 consecutive residents assessed. METHODS: Four orthopedic cases were developed. USPs presented themselves as patients in outpatient clinics. Residents were evaluated on communication skills (information gathering, relationship development, and education and counseling). USPs globally rated whether they would recommend the resident. RESULTS: Forty-eight USP encounters were completed over a 2-year period. Communication skills items were rated at 51% (+/-30) "well done." Education and counseling skills were rated as the lowest communication domain at 33% (+/-33). Residents were globally recommended based on communication skills in 63% of the encounters recommended in 70% of encounters based on both professionalism and medical competence. CONCLUSIONS: The USP program has been useful in assessing residents' clinical skills, interpersonal and communications skills, and professionalism. Use of USP in orthopedic surgery training programs can be an objective means for trainee assessment.

Transitioning medical students are anxious about their readiness-for-internship, as are their residency program directors and teaching hospital leadership responsible for care quality and patient safety. A readiness-for-internship assessment program could contribute to ensuring optimal quality and safety and be a key element in implementing competency-based, time-variable medical education. In this paper, we describe the development of the Night-onCall program (NOC), a 4-h readiness-for-internship multi-instructional method simulation event. NOC was designed and implemented over the course of 3 years to provide an authentic "night on call" experience for near graduating students and build measurements of students' readiness for this transition framed by the Association of American Medical College's Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency. The NOC is a product of a program of research focused on questions related to enabling individualized pathways through medical training. The lessons learned and modifications made to create a feasible, acceptable, flexible, and educationally rich NOC are shared to inform the discussion about transition to residency curriculum and best practices regarding educational handoffs from undergraduate to graduate education.

BACKGROUND:The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has described 6 core competencies with which trainees should demonstrate proficiency. Using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), we aimed to assess 4 of these competencies among Pediatric Gastrointestinal (GI) fellows (PGs). METHODS:Eight first-year PGs from 6 medical centers in the New York area participated in a 4-station OSCE with trained standardized patient (SP) actors. The cases included an emergency department (ED) consult, or "ED Consult" for lower gastrointestinal bleeding; "Breaking Bad News" focusing on CF nutritional complications; "Second Opinion" for abdominal pain; "Transition of Care" for inflammatory bowel disease. At each station, attending faculty observed the encounters behind a 1-way mirror. SPs and faculties provided immediate feedback to the examined fellows. Previously validated OSCE checklists were used to assess performance. On completion, fellows attended debriefing sessions and completed surveys about the educational value. RESULTS:Median overall milestone competency scores were 6.9 (PC1), 4.8 (PC2), 5.9 (MK1), 5.7 (MK2), 6.4 (ICS1), 6.9 (Prof1), and 6.7 (Prof3). Overall, fellows score highest (7/9) on the inflammatory bowel disease "Transition of Care" case, found the "Breaking Bad News" Cystic Fibrosis OSCE to be the most challenging, and were most comfortable with the "ED Consult" OSCE, as a commonly encountered scenario. Overall, the fellows rated the educational value of the program highly. CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, although the OSCE has been validated in other medical fields, this is the first OSCE program developed for PGs fellows. These OSCEs have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies, serving to assess fellows' skills in these areas while exposing them to challenging medical and psychosocial cases that they may not frequently encounter.

Program/Project Purpose: Teaching medicine in English in non-English-speaking countries is increasingly common. IMGs receive less communication skills training and tend to perform less well on communication skills assessments. This project's purpose was to create the first Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) program in English with standardized patients at one medical school in Turkey. Structure/Method/Design: All 48 medical students in the fourth year M.D. class (of six years) at Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey, were separated into two internal medicine blocks in 2015-16, and were given a single station, pass/fail, end-of-block OSCE in English. Palpitations and abdominal pain OSCE cases were adapted with permission from New York University. Six American teachers from the KU English Learning Center and five faculty from KUSOM were recruited and trained as SPs and faculty assessors, respectively, in 3 training sessions per OSCE. NYU's competency-based assessment checklists were used. To prepare students, specific bedside teaching sessions were delivered during the clinical block. Data was analyzed in REDCap and ethical approval was obtained at KUSOM. Outcome & Evaluation: For each block, 58-100% students passed the OSCE. SPs gave well done marks to 50-88% for eliciting the story with appropriate questions, 8-20% for providing clear explanations about diagnosis and treatment, 58-76% for managing the physical exam respectfully, 66-80% for using clear and easy to understand English, and 50-64% of students would be recommended or highly recommended to a friend, respectively (N=48 divided into two blocks). Students who failed scored poorly on medical English anchors (N=10). Students most strongly agreed that the OSCE helped them identify strengths and weaknesses and stimulated them to learn more (3.24 and 2.96 averages, Likert scale 1=strongly disagree, 4=strongly agree). Going Forward: KUSOM's OSCE pilot program exceeded expectations. Education and counseling was more challenging than information gathering or conducting physical examination. The second block performed better than the first block. The large increase in performance between blocks is likely explained by better attendance at bedside sessions. Offering OSCEs in both English and Turkish next year will help clarify whether their performance reflected clinical skills or English language alone. These findings inform expansion of curriculum and faculty development in bedside teaching at KUSOM

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are effective and appropriate therapy for many types of acute pain. Epidemiologic evidence supports a direct relationship between increased opioid prescribing and increases in opioid use disorders and overdoses. OBJECTIVE: To tailor our residency curriculum, we designed and fielded an unannounced standardized patient (USP) case involving a patient with acute back pain who is requesting Vicodin (5/325 mg). We describe residents' case management and examine whether their management decisions, including opioid prescribing, were related to their core clinical skills. METHODS: Results are based on 50 (USP) visits with residents in 2 urban primary care clinics. Highly trained USPs portrayed a patient with acute lower back pain who was taking leftover Vicodin with effective pain relief but was running out. We describe how residents managed this case, using both USP report and chart review data, and compare summary clinical skills scores between those who prescribed Vicodin and those who did not. RESULTS: Of the 50 residents, 18 prescribed Vicodin (10-60 pills). Among those who did not prescribe (32/50), most (50%) prescribed ibuprofen. Eighty-three percent of the prescribers and 72% of nonprescribers ordered physical therapy (nonsignificant). Of the 18 prescribers, 13 documented checking the prescription monitoring database. Prescribers had significantly better communication scores than nonprescribers (relationship development: 80% vs. 58% well done, P = .029; patient education: 59% vs. 31% well done, P = .018). Assessment summary scores were also higher (60% vs. 46%) but not significantly (P = .060). Patient satisfaction and activation scores were higher in the prescribers than nonprescribers (71% vs. 39%, P = .004 and 48% vs. 26%, P = .034, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most Vicodin prescribers did not follow prescribing guidelines, and they demonstrated better communication and assessment skills than the nonprescribers. Results suggest the need to guide residents in using a systematic approach to prescribing opioids safely and to develop an acceptable alternative pain management plan when they decide against prescribing.

AIM: To assess first-year gastroenterology fellows' ability to address difficult interpersonal situations in the workplace using objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE). METHODS: Two OSCEs ("distracted care team" and "frazzled intern") were created to assess response to disruptive behavior. In case 1, a fellow used a colonoscopy simulator while interacting with a standardized patient (SP), nurse, and attending physician all played by actors. The nurse and attending were instructed to display specific disruptive behavior and disregard the fellow unless requested to stop the disruptive behavior and focus on the patient and procedure. In case 2, the fellow was to calm an intern managing a patient with massive gastrointestinal bleeding. The objective in both scenarios was to assess the fellows' ability to perform their duties while managing the disruptive behavior displayed by the actor. The SPs used checklists to rate fellows' performances. The fellows completed a self-assessment survey. RESULTS: Twelve fellows from four gastrointestinal fellowship training programs participated in the OSCE. In the "distracted care team" case, one-third of the fellows interrupted the conflict and refocused attention to the patient. Half of the fellows were able to display professionalism despite the heated discussion nearby. Fellows scored lowest in the interprofessionalism portion of post-OSCE surveys, measuring their ability to handle the conflict. In the "frazzled intern" case, 68% of fellows were able to establish a calm and professional relationship with the SP. Despite this success, only half of the fellows were successfully communicate a plan to the SP and only a third scored "well done" in a domain that focused on allowing the intern to think through the case with the fellow's guidance. CONCLUSION: Fellows must receive training on how to approach disruptive behavior. OSCEs are a tool that can assess fellow skills and set a culture for open discussion.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is an important quality indicator, and healthcare organizations spend considerable resources assessing patient satisfaction. Yet a view of patient experience gleaned from patient satisfaction measures tends to show high levels of reported satisfaction, with little variation. Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) have been used to assess providers' clinical skills, but can also provide other information about the healthcare encounter. This study examined the concordance between USP and patient reports of care at the same site. METHODS: Data was gathered at Bellevue Hospital Primary Care Clinic, a city safety-net hospital. USPs assess internal medicine residents training there, and complete a behaviorally anchored checklist of resident skills and interactions with other staff, wait times, ease of clinic navigation, and perceptions of team functioning. Data from 155 USP visits from July 2015-Oct 2016 was used in this study. Independently, as part of team-training efforts in the Primary Care Clinic, patient satisfaction surveys were collected, addressing similar issues. At the end of a clinic visit, research assistants unrelated to patient care asked patients to complete a 30-item survey. 118 surveys were completed between July-November 2016. 11 items appeared on both scales (though worded slightly different) and were used in this comparison. These included questions about clerical (CA) and patient care associates (PCA), and providers (MDs, NPs, PAs), provision of information, team functioning and clinic environment. Of the 11 items, 4 had the same response choices. 7 had differing numbers of responses (eg 4 vs 3 point Likert scales), evenly distributed across patient and USP scales. For each of these items, we collapsed items so to maximize positive ratings (eg. on a 4 point scale from poor to excellent, "good" and "excellent" were combined rather than "good" and "fair"). Chi-square analyses were computed to examine group differences. RESULTS: On chi-square analyses, 9 of the 11 items significantly differed between the USP and patient groups, with patients more likely to have positive ratings. These included rating PCAs as friendlier (x² = 8.67(1,206), p = .003) and providers better at answering questions (x² = 11.75 (2,265), p = .003); reporting that they received sufficient/clear instructions about medication refills and follow-up (x² = 29.5(2,264), p = .0001); finding the clinic atmosphere calmer than did USPs (x² = 10.5 (2,265), p=.005) and noting that the team functioned better (x² = 7.31(2,268), p = .026). There were no significant differences in willingness to recommend the clinic or on clarity of CAs' communication. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study document the differing perspectives of patients and USPs. Consistent with previous work, patients in our study tended to rate most items higher than did the USPs. USPs provide a different, and likely a more critical look at the clinical setting and this information can enhance efforts to improve patient experience. (Table Presented)