Faculty Bibliography

Intro/Background: Virtual Urgent Care (VUC) is now a common modality for providing real-time assessment and treatment of common low acuity medical problems. However, most physicians have not had formal telemedicine training or clinical experience and therefore lack proficiency with this new modality of healthcare delivery. We created an experiential onboarding program deploying standardized patients (SPs) into a VUC platform to assess and deliver feedback to physicians, providing individual-level quality assurance and identifying program-level areas for improvement. Purpose/Objective: The objective of this program was to create an experiential training module for physicians as part of their VUC onboarding process with the goal of quality assurance and patient safety. The onboarding experience incorporated common standards for doctor-patient communication as well as the unique skills necessary for the practice of telemedicine. The encounters were unobserved by other faculty, providing participants with a safe and confidential environment to receive feedback on their communication and telemedicine skills.
Method(s): We simulated a synchronous urgent care evaluation of a 25-year-old man with lingering viral upper respiratory tract symptoms refractory to over-thecounter medications. SP training included strongly requesting an antibiotic prescription. A mock electronic medical record encounter provided physicians with demographic and prior medical history. The announced SP appointment occurred during a routine VUC shift. Our behaviorally-anchored assessment tool evaluated communication, case-specific, and telemedicine-specific skills. Response options comprised 'not done,' 'partly done,' and 'well done.' Outcomes (if available): Twenty-one physicians provided appropriate management without prescribing antibiotics. Physicians performed 'well done' in Information Gathering (93%) and Relationship Development (99%) domains. In contrast, Education and Counseling skills were less strong (32% 'well done'); few received 'well done' for checking understanding (14%); conveying and summarizing information (9%). Telemedicine skills were infrequently used: 19% performed virtual physical exam, 24% utilized audio/video interface to augment information gathering, 14% assessed sound, video or ensured backup plan should video fail.
Summary: This experiential virtual urgent care onboarding program utilizing standardized patient announced encounters uncovers several areas for improvement within telemedicine-specific and patient education domains. Participating VUC physicians had 2 to 23 years of clinical experience. Results illustrate that irrespective of experience, telemedicine visits create a unique set of challenges to the traditional way physicians are taught to engage with their patients. Overall, the onboarding exercise was well received by participating physicians. At the conclusion of the visit, SPs provided immediate verbal feedback to urgent care physicians, who received a summary report and had an opportunity provide structured feedback regarding the case. A subset of urgent care physicians (n=9) provided feedback regarding the case; 100% 'somewhat or strongly agreed' that the encounter improved their confidence communicating via the video interface and helped improve telehealth skills. Our innovative onboarding program utilizing highly trained standardized patients can uncover potential gaps in telemedicinespecific skills and form the basis for dedicated training for virtual urgent care physicians to assure quality and patient safety

BACKGROUND:System based practice (SBP) milestones require trainees to effectively navigate the larger health care system for optimal patient care. In gastroenterology training programs, the assessment of SBP is difficult due to high volume, high acuity inpatient care, as well as inconsistent direct supervision. Nevertheless, structured assessment is required for training programs. We hypothesized that objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) would be an effective tool for assessment of SBP. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To develop a novel method for SBP milestone assessment of gastroenterology fellows using the OSCE. METHODS:For this observational study, we created 4 OSCE stations: Counseling an impaired colleague, handoff after overnight call, a feeding tube placement discussion, and giving feedback to a medical student on a progress note. Twenty-six first year fellows from 7 programs participated. All fellows encountered identical case presentations. Checklists were completed by trained standardized patients who interacted with each fellow participant. A report with individual and composite scores was generated and forwarded to program directors to utilize in formative assessment. Fellows also received immediate feedback from a faculty observer and completed a post-session program evaluation survey. RESULTS:." One hundred percent of the fellows stated they would incorporate OSCE learning into their clinical practice. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:OSCEs may be used for standardized evaluation of SBP milestones. Trainees scored lower on SBP milestones than other more concrete milestones. Training programs should consider OSCEs for assessment of SBP.

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