Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:There were seven opioid overdoses in this New York City (NYC) federally qualified health center from December 2018 through February 2019, reflecting the rising rate of overdose deaths in NYC overall at the time. In response to these overdoses, we sought to increase the readiness of health center staff to recognize and respond to opioid overdoses and decrease stigmatizing attitudes around opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS:An hour-long training focusing on opioid overdose response was administered to clinical and non-clinical staff of all levels at the health center. This training included didactic education on topics such as the overdose epidemic, stigma around OUD, and opioid overdose response, as well as discussion. A structured assessment was administered immediately before and following the training to evaluate change in knowledge and attitudes. Additionally, participants completed a feedback survey immediately after the training to assess acceptability. Paired t-tests and analysis of variance tests were used to assess changes in pre- and post-test scores. RESULTS:Over 76% of the health center staff participated in the training (N = 310). There were large and significant increases in mean knowledge and attitudinal scores from pre- to post-test (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). While there was no significant effect of profession on attitudinal change scores, profession did have a significant effect on knowledge change scores, with administrative staff, non-clinical support staff, other healthcare staff, and therapists learning significantly more than providers (p < .001). The training had high acceptability among participants from diverse departments and levels. CONCLUSIONS:An interactive educational training increased staff's knowledge and readiness to respond to an overdose as well as improved attitudes toward individuals living with OUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:This project was undertaken as a quality improvement initiative at the health center and as such was not formally supervised by the Institutional Review Board per their policies. Further, per the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, registration is not necessary for clinical trials whose sole purpose is to assess an intervention's effect on providers.

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.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Nonadherence to antihypertensive medications remains a persistent problem that leads to preventable morbidity and mortality. Behavioral economic strategies represent a novel way to improve antihypertensive medication adherence, but remain largely untested especially in vulnerable populations which stand to benefit the most. The Behavioral Economics Trial To Enhance Regulation of Blood Pressure (BETTER-BP) was designed in this context, to test whether a digitally-enabled incentive lottery improves antihypertensive adherence and reduces systolic blood pressure (SBP). DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:BETTER-BP is a pragmatic randomized trial conducted within 3 safety-net clinics in New York City: Bellevue Hospital Center, Gouveneur Hospital Center, and NYU Family Health Centers - Park Slope. The trial will randomize 435 patients with poorly controlled hypertension and poor adherence (<80% days adherent) in a 2:1 ratio (intervention:control) to receive either an incentive lottery versus passive monitoring. The incentive lottery is delivered via short messaging service (SMS) text messages that are delivered based on (1) antihypertensive adherence tracked via a wireless electronic monitoring device, paired with (2) a probability of lottery winning with variable incentives and a regret component for nonadherence. The study intervention lasts for 6 months, and ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) will be measured at both 6 and 12 months to evaluate immediate and durable lottery effects. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:BETTER-BP will generate knowledge about whether an incentive lottery is effective in vulnerable populations to improve antihypertensive medication adherence. If successful, this could lead to the implementation of this novel strategy on a larger scale to improve outcomes.

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.

QUALITY ISSUE:The emergence of COVID-19 highlights the necessity of rapidly identifying and isolating potentially infected individuals. Evaluating this preparedness requires an assessment of the full clinical system, from intake to isolation. INITIAL ASSESSMENT:Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) present a nimble, sensitive methodology for assessing this readiness. CHOICE OF SOLUTION:Pilot the Unannounced Standardized Patient methodology, which employs an actor trained to present as a standardized, incognito potentially infected patient, to assess clinical readiness for potential COVID-19 patients at an urban, community safety-net clinic. IMPLEMENTATION:The Unannounced Standardized Patient was trained to present at each team's front desk with the complaint of feeling unwell (reporting a fever of 101 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 24 hours) and exposure to a roommate recently returned from Beijing. The Unannounced Standardized Patient was trained to complete a behaviorally-anchored assessment of the care she received from the clinical system. EVALUATION:There was clear variation in care Unannounced Standardized Patients received; some frontline clerical staff followed best practices; others did not. Signage and information on disease spread prevention publicly available was inconsistent. Qualitative comments shared by the Unannounced Standardized Patients and those gathered during group debrief reinforced the experiences of the Unannounced Standardized Patients and hospital leadership. LESSONS LEARNED:Unannounced Standardized Patients revealed significant variation in care practices within a clinical system. Utilization of this assessment methodology can provide just-in-time clinical information about readiness and safety practices, particularly during emerging outbreaks. Unannounced Standardized Patients will prove especially powerful as clinicians and systems return to outpatient visits while remaining vigilant about potentially infected individuals.

Background/UNASSIGNED:During the rapid onset of the pandemic, clinicians transitioned from traditional outpatient practice to virtual modalities for providing routine care to patient panels. Like training programs nationwide, telemedicine training and assessment had not been systematically incorporated into our residency. In response, a scheduled Internal Medicine (IM) Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) was adapted to a remote modality to become virtual care-focused learning experience for trainees and to provide valuable feedback to educators. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Standardized Patients (SPs) rated residents on their communication (including information gathering, relationship development and patient education), patient activation and satisfaction, and telemedicine skills. Analyses included a comparison of domain scores for residents who participated in both the 2020 remote and 2019 in-person OSCEs, and a review of written resident comments about the virtual OSCE. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .008). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Our reformulated OSCE accomplished 3 goals including; (1) physically distancing residents from SPs per COVID regulations, (2) providing residents with the opportunity to practice critical virtual visit skills, and (3) alerting our educators to curricular improvement areas. Our methods are useful for other institutions and have applications to the larger medical education community.