Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Presenting the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) can be a difficult task, but disclosing this information effectively is important to optimize patient outcomes. We sought to develop a standardized method to teach neurology residents how to introduce the diagnosis of PNES via an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with a standardized patient (SP). METHODS:In conjunction with the New York University School of Medicine Simulation Center (NYSIM), we designed an OSCE in which a resident had to inform a SP of her diagnosis of PNES and discuss a treatment plan. The SP was provided with details to gradually disclose depending on what the resident said about the history of her episodes, triggers for her episodes and her history of sexual abuse. Each encounter was observed by an attending physician who provided real-time feedback to the resident after the session. Additionally, the SP completed an objective written checklist of items the resident should have covered in the session and gave them verbal feedback. RESULTS:Twenty-six adult neurology (n = 22), child neurology (n = 3), and neuropsychiatry (n = 1) residents participated in this OSCE in 2018 and 2019, with full data available for 25 participants. Residents reported the OSCE was very useful (mean Likert score of 4.9/5). They felt moderately prepared (mean Likert score 3.8/5) and rated their performance as a mean of 3.3/5. On the SP's checklist, most residents were rated as Well Done in the domains of information gathering, relationship development, and education and counseling. Only in the domain of psychosocial assessment were most residents rated as Not Done (only 7/25 inquired about past trauma as a risk factor for PNES). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:The OSCEs are a feasible and useful way to teach neurology residents about discussing PNES, as they allow for provision of real-time practice and feedback in a safe environment without real patients.

BACKGROUND: According to the 2017 American College of Gastroenterology (AGA) guidelines, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of drug trough concentrations and anti-drug antibodies is recommended to optimize treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and thiopurines1. Specifically, the AGA conditionally recommends reactive TDM in patients with active symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) while on anti-TNF agents, as such testing is crucial for differentiating between mechanistic, non-immune mediated pharmacokinetic and immune-mediated pharmacokinetic drug failure, and allows providers to appropriately tailor treatment regimens. As such algorithms for monitoring therapies in IBD have evolved, it has become incumbent on physicians caring for these patients to develop techniques to engage in patient-centered care using the technique of shared decision making. Gastroenterology (GI) trainees may not be well versed in navigating these complex interpersonal skills. The Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a well-validated method of assessing core competencies of communication and professionalism. While it is traditionally used at the undergraduate medical education level, it has been used at the graduate level to address disease-specific competencies. Here, we discuss the use of an OSCE to assess the performance of GI fellows in engaging in shared decision-making on the topic of TDM for a patient with complex IBD refractory to treatment.
METHOD(S): Eleven second-year gastroenterology fellows from 4 GI fellowship programs participated in a 4 station OSCE. Previously validated OSCE checklists were used to assess the fellows' performance in IBD-specific cases, one of which will be discussed here. In the "Therapeutic Drug Monitoring" case, the objective for the fellows was to discuss the indications for infliximab trough and antibody testing and how results of this testing would impact treatment based on the AGA guidelines. Checklists were scored on a 3 and 5-point Likert Scale by the Standardized Patient (SP), mapped to the appropriate ACGME milestones by a GI medical educator and normalized on a scale from 0 to 9. Post-OSCE, the fellows were surveyed to assess their perspective on their performance as well as the exam's educational value.
RESULT(S): 6 ACGME milestones were assessed in this OSCE. Scores ranged from mean of 5.85 to 7.88. Fellows scored lowest on gathering and synthesizing essential and accurate information to define each patient's clinical problem(s) (PC1, mean score 5.85) with an average score of 5.85. They scored highest for overall clinical knowledge (MK1, mean score 7.88). Overall, 9/10 (90%) of fellows would be recommended for their interpersonal skills, but only 4/10 (40%) were deemed effective in their communication skills. The majority of fellows noted improvement in their understanding of when to use and how to interpret TDM after the exercise. CONCLUSION(S): This OSCE was designed to assess clinical and communication skills for gastroenterology surrounding the complex clinical arena of therapeutic drug monitoring utilizing crucial communication skills. The results suggest weaker performance linked to gathering and synthesizing clinical information, with stronger performance in clinical knowledge, developing management plans and various communication skills. This OSCE feedback and assessment can be used to develop targeted educational interventions to strengthen clinical and communication skills for providers

Background: Low-value tests, defined as inappropriate for a given clinical scenario, are ordered in one in five clinic visits. Residents tend to over-order diagnostic tests to "minimize uncertainty" of presenting cases, even though these tests are not useful according to Bayesian statistics; a pursuit deemed the "Ulysses syndrome". Simultaneously, evidence suggests residents misuse preventive tests in half of relevant clinical scenarios. We sought to quantify ordering behaviors in urban primary care clinics across three unannounced standardized cases.
Method(s): Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) were trained for standardized simulation of three clinical scenarios: a "Well" visit, a chief complaint of "Fatigue," and a diagnosis of "Asthma." USPs were introduced into medicine residents' clinics in an urban, safety-net hospital. All electronic orders were extracted via chart review. Scenario-specific appropriateness of diagnostic testing was determined by referencing United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and society clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). "Preventive" tests (such as lipid panels or hemoglobin A1C) were derived from USPSTF guidelines whereas "Diagnostic" tests (such as pulmonary function testing for Asthma or heterophile antibodies for Fatigue) were from CPGs. "Excessive" tests were those not explicitly indicated for a given scenario in either USPSTF or CPGs (versus "indicated" tests).
Result(s): Indicated tests were ordered in 29% of Well (124 encounters), 16% of Fatigue (148 encounters), and 12% of Asthma (170 encounters) cases. One or more excessive tests were ordered in 44%, 22%, and 17% of Well, Fatigue, and Asthma encounters respectively. The distribution of indicated and excessive tests for preventive versus diagnostic purposes varied by case: In Well visits, the majority (71%) of excessive testing was in pursuit of a diagnosis, while three-quarters of indicated testing was for preventive purposes. In Fatigue and Asthma visits, the reverse patterns were true: the majority of indicated tests ordered were diagnostic (81% and 68%, respectively) while the majority of excessive tests were preventive (78% and 63%, respectively).
Conclusion(s): Introducing USPs to resident clinics revealed that, for patients presenting without a chief complaint (Well visit), residents successfully ordered less than one-third of indicated tests, and over 75% of inappropriately ordered tests pursued a diagnosis. For patients presenting with chief complaints (Fatigue and Asthma), rates of appropriate ordering were even lower (16% and 12%), and tended to overlook preventive care. In these cases, inappropriate tests tended to be ordered for preventive purposes. Awareness of resident mis-utilization of preventive and diagnostic testing in distinct clinical circumstances can guide educational efforts towards evidence-based care and resource stewardship

Background: Faculty development programs (FDP) in medical education can increase clinician educators' (CE) confidence in teaching and improve their teaching skills. The impact of FDP on faculty's role as educators and sense of an educator community is less well understood. Identification with a community of educators (COE) can enhance teaching in the workplace along with personal and professional growth. We evaluated the impact of participation in the Education for Educators program (E4E) on these issues. E4E is a yearlong FDP designed to enhance teaching confidence and skill in a variety of venues; improve ability to assess learners; promote an environment of academic inquiry with trainees at different levels; and create a COE.
Method(s): An annual needs assessment of key stakeholders including medical school deans, program directors, and participants forms the basis for the E4E curriculum. The program begins with a Group Observed Structured Teaching Experience (GOSTE) followed by three 3-hour workshops which pair a clinical and teaching topic. After each workshop, participants complete " commitment to change" statements and take part in peer-to-peer (P2P) observations wherein participants observe each other teaching in their usual teaching environment. The program concludes with structured debriefs and an assessment of participants' perception of their role as educators and their sense of an educator community. Participants reported how participation in E4E impacted their teaching and what new skills they implemented. Structured phone conversations assessed the same information one-year after completing the program.
Result(s): Fifty-one CEs completed the program in two cohorts (2016-17 and 2017-18), 60% of whom were women. Participants included 20 hospitalists and 31 subspecialists, averaging 8 years in practice (range 1-28) and spending an average of 63% of their time in patient care (range 10-100%). Thirty-eight participants (75%) completed the immediate post-program debrief sessions. Participants reported a renewed identification with their role as an educator. They cited a change in perspective to become more reflective and focused on teaching and recognized that their teaching skills can in fact be improved. Many reported time constraints as a barrier to teaching. They noted an increased identification with their COE, stating that they now had peers and mentors with whom to discuss teaching challenges. To date, phone interviews have been completed with three participants at one-year of follow-up. The preliminary Results show a sustained impact on educators' roles and belonging to a COE. They also reported ongoing use of specific skills including resilience strategies, and planning teaching sessions.
Conclusion(s): Longitudinal FDP in medical education for CE can lead to a greater appreciation for the role of an educator, and identification with a COE. Investment in longitudinal FDP may have lasting impact on the clinical learning environment and the identity of faculty as an educator

Background: Newly recruited clinicians have heterogeneous Backgrounds and experiences and need a substantive introduction to their new institution's patient communication expectations and safety culture and standards for clinician performance. We describe a unique onboarding program designed to ensure that newly hired clinicians receive actionable, behaviorally specific feedback from the patients' perspective to support a satisfying transition to the new work environment, enhance patient experience and reduce the need to punitively react to complaints once they have started.
Method(s): During the 2-hour onboarding, participants complete 3, 10-minute Objective Structured Clinical Exam cases designed to assess how they address a medical error, manage the patient's discharge goals of care, and respond to an impaired learner. During each encounter, participants interact with highly trained Standardized Patients (SPs) or Standardized Learners (SLs) who use behaviorally-anchored checklists to evaluate provider performance on communication and case-specific skills. Following each encounter, participants complete a self-assessment while the SPs/SLs complete a behavior-specific checklist, after which the two discuss the encounter and the SL/SP provides confidential and actionable feedback. At the end, participants are encouraged to set individual learning goals to implement in their daily work, complete a program evaluation, and engage in a debrief with experienced facilitators. Participants also receive their SP checklists in addition to an institutional guide containing relevant resources and contacts.
Result(s): Over 2 years, 57 faculty members representing 6 clinical sites participated in the onboarding program. They are heterogeneous with respect to general and case specific performance on these SP/SL cases. For example, 86% adequately elicited the SP/SLs story during the discharge case compared to 66% in the other two cases, 77% addressed pain management (a key patient goal), while 44% did not discuss important medication side effects. Participants have universally found this onboarding to be useful and relevant; 98% agreed/strongly agreed that the program was an effective way to reinforce good habits in patient and learner communication, 96% felt it enhanced confidence about their ability to communicate effectively, and 96% felt it reinforced the institutional culture of safety. All 56 participants who completed the evaluation agreed/strongly agreed that the event was engaging and well-designed, and 93% felt it was a good use of their time and would recommend the program.
Conclusion(s): Traditional orientations are not well recalled and do not address knowledge and skills in real-time. Although it requires additional resources, participants are enthusiastic about our low-stakes introduction to the institution's expectations. This program sets high standards and introduces a new model for skills-based onboarding which may lead to measurably improved patient outcomes

Background: Considerable resources are put into training physicians to be effective providers after residency. Practicing physicians are generally assumed to be more effective and more efficient than resident physicians who are still undergoing training. We capitalize on a unique opportunity to test that hypothesis using the controlled methodology of Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs), Standardized Patients sent into clinical environments to systematically assess provider skills in the context of a standardized clinical scenario. Due to last minute scheduling changes, a small sample of attending physicians ended up seeing USPs we had intended to send to residents. In this study, we report on comparisons between how these attending physicians performed in terms of their patient centeredness, patient activation, assessment, and communication skills in comparison to residents.
Method(s): 6 USP visits were delivered to primary care clinics in an urban safety net hospital from 2009 to 2015. Of those 700+ visits, visits were completed inadvertently with 16 attendings. We selected the 16 attendings with at least 4 years of post-graduate experience and then matched them with 2 resident visits based on hospital, time period, and USP visit type (n=32 residents). In all visits, USPs completed a behav-iorally anchored post-visit checklist that assessed patient centeredness (4 items), patient activation (2 items), visit-specific assessment (10 items), and communication skills including information gathering (4 items), relationship development (5 items) and patient education (3 items). Items were rated as not done or partially done vs. well done and summary scores were calculated as % well done. Mean scores for attendings and matched residents were compared using t-tests.
Result(s): Resident and attending scores on patient centeredness (68% vs 73%), patient activation (44% vs 38%), assessment (53% vs 51%), patient education (49% vs 52%), information gathering (71% vs 78%) and relationship development (70% vs 73%) did not significantly differ (p>.05). Nor did we see any substantial differences in variances or find any outliers.
Conclusion(s): In our matched sample of residents and attendings, there were no significant differences by training level for any of the assessed clinical skills. While we viewed the inadvertent scheduling of USP visits with attendings as an opportunity to investigate the impact of training, our study is limited by the small sample size and whether we were able to create good matches. Findings may reflect ceiling effects (our checklists are too hard) or expertise-reversal effects (experts can skip some elements of the interaction and still arrive at the correct diagnosis and treatment plan). Further research, if our mistakenly-assessed attending sample increases, could explore the influence of PGY level and of patient load as attendings carry substantially heavier patient panels and see more (and probably more complex) patients per day then residents

Statement of Problem Or Question (One Sentence): Does actionable feedback on patient safety indicators and responses to disclosed social determinants of health (SDOH) impact clinical behavior? Objectives of Program/Intervention (No More Than Three Objectives): (1) Develop/disseminate quarterly audit-feedback reports on SDoH practice behavior, focusing on elicitation of patient information. (2) Enhance our understanding of factors related to disparities in safety/quality of care. (3) Increase rates of SDoH documentation and referral. Description of Program/Intervention, Including Organizational Context (E.G. Inpatient Vs. Outpatient, Practice or Community Characteristics): We sent Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) with SDoH-related needs to care teams in two urban, safety-net clinics. Data collected on practice behaviors were used for cycles of audit and feedback on the quality of electronic health record (EHR) documentation, team level information sharing, and appropriate service referral. Reports contained an evolving educational component (e.g. how to recognize, refer, and document SDoH). We disseminated reports to teams (doctors, nurses, physician's assistants, medical assistants, and staff) at routine meetings and via email. Measures of Success (Discuss Qualitative And/Or Quantitative Metrics Which Will Be Used To Evaluate Program/Intervention): Three audit feedback reports have been distributed to date. Survey data was collected at two time points, 2017 (n=77) and 2018 (n=81), to assess provider attitude changes and integration of feedback into clinical practice. Measures included change in team knowledge and attitudes towards SDoH, and response to/documentation of presented SDoH (measured via post-visit checklist and EMR). Findings To Date (It Is Not Sufficient To State Findings Will Be Discussed): Preliminary data shows no change or improvement in documentation of SDoH and limited variation between firm-level responses. (1) Only 7% of providers reported feeling strongly confident in knowing how to make referrals for social needs in 2018; no improvement since 2017. (2) Despite regular report distribution, 58% of providers reported having received no formalized feedback on responding to SDoH. 24% reported maybe or not sure. (3) 86% of 2018 survey participants self-reported having referred a patient to appropriate services when a social need was identified. Our referral data says otherwise, referrals occur for less than 30% of visits with SDoH-related needs. Key Lessons For Dissemination (What Can Others Take Away For Implementation To Their Practice Or Community?): Results suggest disconnect between team data and individual reporting: most report they refer but data suggests few do. Deeper integration of reports into team processes, attachment of feedback to curricula, and increased frequency of regular feedback may be needed for accountability. These preliminary Results help refine audit feedback methodology but research is needed to understand motivation and systems barriers to referral and documentation. Future research will look at provider attitudes toward referral processes

Background: The core Entrustable Professional Activities medical school graduates should be able to perform on day 1 of residency provides a framework for readiness for residency. Communication skills are an essential foundation for these core EPAs and yet there have been few studies that describe communication competence across the UME-GME continuum. We report on our OSCE-based assessment of communication skills from the first few weeks of medical school to the first year of medicine residency.
Method(s): Assessment of communication is consistent in our OSCE program across UME and GME. Domains include Information Gathering (5 items), Relationship Development (6 items), and Patient Education (3 items) and these are assessed via a behaviorally anchored checklist (scores=% well done) that has strong reliability and validity evidence. In this study, we report on 3 multi-station OSCEs: the Introductory Clinical Experience (ICE) OSCE that occurs within the first weeks of medical school; the high-stakes, pass/fail Comprehensive Clinical Skills Examination (CCSE) OSCE that is fielded after clerkship year; and the Medicine Residency Program's PGY 1 OSCE. Across 3 classes of medical school (2014-2016) we have complete data for the 24 students who continued on in our Medicine Residency (and who provided consent to include their educational data in an IRB-approved registry). Analyses focus on differences in communication skills over time and between cohorts and the relationship between communication skills measured in medical school and those assessed in residency.
Result(s): Communication scores show significant improvement through medical school (but not into residency) in Information gathering (ICE mean=56%; CCSE mean=76%; PGY1 mean=77%) (F=11.54, p<.001, ICE< CCSE) and in relationship development (ICE=59%; CCSE=78%; PGY1= 74% (F=10.68, p<.001, ICE < CCSE). Mean patient education skills, however, increase significantly across all 3 time points (32% to 50% to 65%; F=31.00, p<.001). Patterns are similar across cohorts except that the Class of 2016 means increase from CCSE to PGY1. Regression analyses show that CCSE information gathering scores are more strongly associated with PGY performance than ICE scores (Std Beta=.32 vs.06), while for relationship development, it is the ICE scores that are more strongly associated (Std Beta=.40 vs.24). ICE and CCSE patient education skills have associations with PGY1 skill of similar size (Std Beta=.30 and.28).
Conclusion(s): Findings, despite the small sample, suggest a clear developmental trajectory for communication skills development and that information gathering and patient education skills may be more influenced by medical school than relationship development. That communication skills seem to level out in PGY1 highlights need for re-consolidation as clinical complexity increases. Results can inform theory development on how communication skills develop and point to transitions where skills practice/feedback may be particularly important