Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Objective structured clinical exams (OSCE) are used to train and assess resident foundational family-centered communication skills incorporating key stakeholders. In 2020 encounters were conducted virtually. We sought to compare standardized patient (SP) and family faculty (FF) assessment across OSCE and virtual OSCE (VOSCE) formats. METHODS:The intern classes of 2019 and 2020 completed a live OSCE and VOSCE respectively where they disclosed an error to an SP. The 10 minute encounter was observed by an FF and facilitator followed by a 20 minute debrief. The SP and FF completed a behavioral checklist to evaluate skill mastery. RESULTS:Eighteen (90%) of the 20 interns completed the encounter each year. Total mastery scores were significantly higher for SP assessment than for FF assessment in both OSCE [68% vs 46% (z=-3.005, p<.05)] and VOSCE formats [68% vs 53% (z=-2.105, p<0.05)]. Total mastery scores of SPs across OSCE and VOSCE formats did not significantly differ, nor did FF scores based on evaluation format. CONCLUSIONS:Our current experience suggests VOSCEs are a viable alternative to in person sessions given the comparable assessment across the two modalities. The ease of participating in virtual sessions may provide a way to more easily partner with key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND:Neurology faculty care for complex patients, teach, and work within multidisciplinary teams. It is imperative for faculty to have strong communication skills. METHODS:We surveyed NYU neurology teaching faculty to determine levels of comfort and experience over the past year with providing negative feedback to a trainee; debriefing after an adverse clinical outcome; and assisting a struggling colleague. We examined the relationship between levels of comfort and experience with 1) faculty self-identified sex and 2) number of years since completion of medical training. RESULTS:The survey was completed by 36/83 teaching neurology faculty (43 %); 17 (47 %) respondents were female and 21 (58 %) were ≤10 years post-training. The proportions of faculty who reported feeling uncomfortable were 44 % (16/36) for assisting a struggling colleague, 28 % (10/36) for providing negative feedback, and 19 % (7/36) for debriefing an adverse outcome. Proportions of faculty who reported they had no experience were 75 % (27/36) for assisting a struggling colleague, 39 % (14/36) for debriefing an adverse clinical event, and 17 % (6/36) for providing negative feedback. Female respondents and faculty who were ≤10 years post-training were more likely to report feeling uncomfortable with assisting a struggling colleague and to have had no experience doing so in the past year. On multivariate analyses accounting for sex and experience, sex remained independently associated with feeling uncomfortable with assisting a struggling colleague (OR = 12.2, 95 % CI: 2.1-69.6, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Faculty development may be needed to improve comfort and experience with challenging communication-based interactions. Female faculty and faculty early in their careers may benefit most.

In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomized, controlled clinical trial, participants who were  ≥ 60 years of age in the intensive lifestyle (diet and physical activity) intervention had a 71% reduction in incident diabetes over the 3-year trial. However, few of the 26.4 million American adults age ≥65 years with prediabetes are participating in the National DPP. The BRInging the Diabetes prevention program to GEriatric Populations (BRIDGE) randomized trial compares an in-person DPP program Tailored for Older AdulTs (DPP-TOAT) to a DPP-TOAT delivered via group virtual sessions (V-DPP-TOAT) in a randomized, controlled trial design (N = 230). Eligible patients are recruited through electronic health records (EHRs) and randomized to the DPP-TOAT or V-DPP-TOAT arm. The primary effectiveness outcome is 6-month weight loss and the primary implementation outcome is intervention session attendance with a non-inferiority design. Findings will inform best practices in the delivery of an evidence-based intervention.

The objective of this study was to compare unannounced standardized patient (USP) and patient reports of care. Patient satisfaction surveys and USP checklist results collected at an urban, public hospital were compared to identify items included in both surveys. Qualitative commentary was reviewed to better understand USP and patient satisfaction survey data. Analyses included χ² and Mann-Whitney U test. Patients provided significantly higher ratings on 10 of the 11 items when compared to USPs. USPs may provide a more objective perspective on a clinical encounter than a real patient, reinforcing the notion that real patients skew overly positive or negative.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:COVID-19 forced health systems to rapidly implement telehealth for routine practice, often without sufficient training or standards. We conducted a longitudinal survey of physicians to explore changes in their perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telehealth and identify recommendations for future practice. METHODS:An anonymous online survey was distributed to a cohort of internal medicine physicians in May to June 2020 and March to June 2021. Changes in responses between 2020 and 2021 and by site (private vs. public) were described. These findings, along with those of a thematic analysis of open-ended responses to questions on telehealth experiences, informed a set of recommendations. RESULTS: = 0.027). Physicians' open-ended responses identified recommendations for further improving the design and use of telehealth. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that physician experience with telehealth improved but opportunities for training and improved integration remain. Longitudinal assessment can deepen understanding of the evolution of telehealth care.

BACKGROUND:Vaccine hesitancy is challenging for clinicians and of increasing concern since COVID-19 vaccination rollout began. Standardized patients (SPs) provide an ideal method for assessing resident physicians' current skills, providing opportunity to practice and gain immediate feedback, while also informing evaluation of curriculum and training. As such, we designed and implemented an OSCE station where residents were tasked with engaging and educating a vaccine-hesitant patient. AIM/OBJECTIVE:Describe residents' vaccine counseling practices, core communication and interpersonal skills, and effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the case. Explore how effectiveness in overcoming vaccine hesitancy may be associated with communication and interpersonal skills in order to inform educational efforts. SETTING/METHODS:Annual OSCE at a simulation center. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:106 internal medicine residents (51% PGY1, 49% PGY2). PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/METHODS:Residents participated in an annual residency-wide, multi-station OSCE, one of which included a Black, middle-aged, vaccine-hesitant male presenting for a routine video visit. Residents had 10 min to complete the encounter, during which they sought to educate, explore concerns, and make a recommendation. After each encounter, faculty gave residents feedback on their counseling skills and reviewed best practices for effective communication on the topic. SPs completed a behaviorally anchored checklist (30 items across 7 clinical skill domains and 2 measures of trust in the vaccine's safety and resident) which will inform future curriculum. PROGRAM EVALUATION/RESULTS:Fifty-five percent (SD: 43%) of the residents performed well on the vaccine-specific education domain. PGY2 residents scored significantly higher on two of the seven domains compared to PGY1s (patient education/counseling-PGY1: 35% (SD: 36%) vs. PGY2: 52% (SD: 41%), p = 0.044 and activation-PGY1: 37% (SD: 45%) vs. PGY2: 59% (SD: 46%), p = 0.016). In regression analyses, education/counseling and vaccine-specific communication skills were strongly, positively associated with trust in the resident and in the vaccine's safety. A review of qualitative data from the SPs' perspective suggested that low performers did not use patient-centered communication skills. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This needs assessment suggests that many residents needed in-the-moment feedback, additional education, and vaccine-specific communication practice. Our program plans to reinforce evidence-based practices physicians can implement for vaccine hesitancy through ongoing curriculum, practice, and feedback. This type of needs assessment is replicable at other institutions and can be used, as we have, to ultimately shed light on next steps for programmatic improvement.