Faculty Bibliography

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Hospital and ambulatory care systems are rapidly building their virtual care capacity in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of resident trainees in telemedicine is one area of potential development and expansion. To date, however, training opportunities in this field have been limited, and residents may not be adequately prepared to provide high-quality telemedicine care. AIM/OBJECTIVE:This study evaluates the impact of an adapted telemedicine Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) on telemedicine-specific training competencies of residents. SETTING/METHODS:Primary Care Internal Medicine residents at a large urban academic hospital. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/METHODS:In March 2020, the New York University Grossman School of Medicine Primary Care program adapted its annual comprehensive OSCE to a telemedicine-based platform, to comply with distance learning and social distancing policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. A previously deployed in-person OSCE on the subject of a medical error was adapted to a telemedicine environment and deployed to 23 primary care residents. Both case-specific and core learning competencies were assessed, and additional observations were conducted on the impact of the telemedicine context on the encounter. PROGRAM EVALUATION/RESULTS:Three areas of telemedicine competency need were identified in the OSCE case: technical proficiency; virtual information gathering, including history, collateral information collection, and physical exam; and interpersonal communication skills, both verbal and nonverbal. Residents expressed enthusiasm for telemedicine training, but had concerns about their preparedness for telemedicine practice and the need for further competency and curricular development. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Programs interested in building capacity among residents to perform telemedicine, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, can make significant impact in their trainees' comfort and preparedness by addressing key issues in technical proficiency, history and exam skills, and communication. Further research and curricular development in digital professionalism and digital empathy for trainees may also be beneficial.

BACKGROUND:Medical Education research suffers from several methodological limitations including too many single institution, small sample-sized studies, limited access to quality data, and insufficient institutional support. Increasing calls for medical education outcome data and quality improvement research have highlighted a critical need for uniformly clean and easily accessible data. Research registries may fill this gap. In 2006, the Research on Medical Education Outcomes (ROMEO) unit of the Program for Medical Innovations and Research (PrMEIR) at New York University's (NYU) Robert I. Grossman School of Medicine established the Database for Research on Academic Medicine (DREAM). DREAM is a database of routinely collected, de-identified undergraduate (UME, medical school leading up to the Medical Doctor degree) and graduate medical education (GME, residency also known as post graduate education leading to eligibility for specialty board certification) outcomes data available, through application, to researchers. Learners are added to our database through annual consent sessions conducted at the start of educational training. Based on experience, we describe our methods in creating and maintaining DREAM to serve as a guide for institutions looking to build a new or scale up their medical education registry. RESULTS:At present, our UME and GME registries have consent rates of 90% (n = 1438/1598) and 76% (n = 1988/2627), respectively, with a combined rate of 81% (n = 3426/4225). 7% (n = 250/3426) of these learners completed both medical school and residency at our institution. DREAM has yielded a total of 61 individual studies conducted by medical education researchers and a total of 45 academic journal publications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We have built a community of practice through the building of DREAM and hope, by persisting in this work the full potential of this tool and the community will be realized. While researchers with access to the registry have focused primarily on curricular/ program evaluation, learner competency assessment, and measure validation, we hope to expand the output of the registry to include patient outcomes by linking learner educational and clinical performance across the UME-GME continuum and into independent practice. Future publications will reflect our efforts in reaching this goal and will highlight the long-term impact of our collaborative work.

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.

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

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: 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