Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: There's been a recent shift toward addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) during the clinical encounter through discussion and documentation. SDoH documentation in the problem list and through billing-related z-code use is necessary for accurate, individual patient and population level tracking andmay improve quality of care.We sought to better understand if/how providers document their patient's SDoH when elicited during a clinical visit.
METHOD(S): Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) were sent to two safety-net clinics to assess how medicine residents care for a new patient presenting with one of six unique chief complaints, and accompanying underlying financial, housing, and social concerns. USPs assessed resident practices after the encounter through a behaviorally anchored checklist and systematic chart review. USPs volunteered financial concerns while housing insecurity and social isolation needed to be elicited by the provider. Checklist items assessed if the USP was able to fully disclose their SDoH to the provider. Provider documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) in one of three spaces: the history of present illness (HPI), the problem list, or through use of a social determinant-specific Zcode was examined when a USP was able to share their concerns.
RESULT(S): 384 USP visits were sent to medical residents from 2017 to 2019. USPs were able to share their financial concerns during 84% of the encounters, but were less likely to be able to share their housing or social concerns with providers (35% and 28%, respectively). Documentation in the HPI and treatment list remained low across cases (<15%) and only one Z-code was used across all visits. On an individual case level, providers addressed housing insecurity most frequently in the asthma case (discussion 65%; documentation: HPI 39%, Plan 16%) and social isolation in the fatigue case (discussion 57%; documentation: HPI 49%, Plan 2%). Providers were least likely to discuss and document SDoH for patients presenting with acute pain.
CONCLUSION(S): In clinical scenarios where SDoH concerns were elicited, residents documented SDoH in less than half of visits. Omission of SDoH not only effects clinical care but also panel management and SDoH population-level estimations. New education strategies are needed to address resident's ability to elicit and accurately document SDoH

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

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.

Background: It is well documented that few ordered tests are " high value" a significant percentage of those ordered are " low-value." Residency offers an opportunity to teach high-value care and educational interventions to do so have been effective. However, the relationship between high-value care and residents' ability to communicate effectively with patients has not been explored. Ability to establish rapport, gather information effectively, and be patient-centered may impact residents' use of tests. We hypothesize that residents with poor skills in these areas may order tests less efficiently.
Method(s): Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) were introduced into residents' primary care clinics in a large urban, safety net hospital to portray 3 clinical scenarios: a well visit, a chief complaint of fatigue, and a diagnosis of asthma. Orders were extracted via chart review. Appropriateness of orders was determined by reference to United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and clinical practice guidelines. Excessive tests were defined as not explicitly indicated for the scenario-indicated tests were the converse. Number of excessive and % of indicated tests were calculated across the 3 visits for 48 residents. Communication skills in information gathering (5 items) and developing a relationship (6 items) and a patient-centeredness score (4 items: took a personal interest, answered all my questions) were computed as % of behaviorally anchored items rated as " well done" and included in regression models predicting test utilization.
Result(s): On average, residents ordered 15% of indicated tests (SD 9%, 0-38%) across the 3 visits and a mean of 1.3 unnecessary tests (SD 1.7, 0-6). In the regression model, the 3 skills explained 16% of variation in unnecessary tests (p=.047). Information gathering explained the greatest share (8%, p=.041). With all 3 variables in the model, patient-centeredness was positively associated with unnecessary tests (Std Be-ta=.42, p=.016) and information gathering was negatively associated with unnecessary tests (Std Beta=-.34, p=.041). Mirroring these Results, superutilizers (10 residents ordering > =3 excessive tests) had lower information gathering and relationship development scores than other residents (66% vs 75% and 72% vs 76%) but higher patient centeredness scores (80% vs 74%)-although differences were not significant.
Conclusion(s): Our findings suggest that information gathering skills may have a small influence on residents' ordering of excessive tests. Further research with larger samples (adequate power) will help clarify the effect sizes. If our Results stand, interventions for high-value care should include information gathering skills and residency programs should continue to reinforce core communication skills training. In addition, our finding that patient centeredness was associated with ordering unnecessary tests suggests that residency programs could caution residents about conflating ordering of tests with patient-centeredness

Background: Inter-provider variability is a major source of low-value care. The dissemination of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has targeted this variability, yet 44% of physicians are non-adherent to CPG. This may be due to factors including exceptionalism and incentive misalignment that present a conflict between comprehensiveness and prudence in work-up. A subset of super-utilizers are notable outliers: fewer than 0.5% of physicians account for 10% of healthcare costs. Super-utilizers order labs, request consults, order imaging, and prescribe medications at rates 30%, 140%, 14%, and 25% higher than the general population. We sought to quantify provider-specific low-value test ordering behaviors across three 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 a large urban, safety-net hospital. Diagnostic orders were extracted via retrospective chart review. Scenario-specific appropriateness of diagnostic testing was determined by referencing United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and specialty society CPGs. "Excessive" tests were those not explicitly indicated for a given scenario in either USPSTF or society CPGs (versus "indicated" tests). "Discretionary" tests were those conditionally indicated, pending patient-specific factors (such as hemoglobin A1C, pending BMI).
Result(s): One or more excessive tests were ordered in 44%, 22%, and 17% of Well (n=124), Fatigue (n=148), and Asthma (n=148) encounters respectively. Percent of orders that were excessive were 18%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. On average, 1.3 (+/-1.7) excessive orders were made. Within each case, rates of excessive ordering were positively correlated with rates of indicated and discretionary ordering, and negatively correlated with rates of omitting indicated tests. For example, in Fatigue, the correlation between excessive and indicated orders was 0.38, between excessive and discretionary orders rates was 0.59, and between excessive and omitted-indicated tests was-0.25 (all p< 0.05). A similar, statistically-significant pattern was found for the other two cases. 10 (21%) and 4 (8%) of 48 residents completing all scenarios demonstrated excessive ordering at rates atleast 1 and 2 standard deviations above the mean, respectively.
Conclusion(s): Introducing USPs representing clinical scenarios revealed marked inter-provider variability. Positive associations between rates of excessive, discretionary and indicated ordering suggest tendencies for comprehensiveness over prudence. Over one-fifth of residents completing all 3 cases were high-utilizers, and nearly one in ten were super-utilizers. Awareness of provider-level ordering tendencies can guide education and interventions supporting appropriate diagnostic use

Needs and Objectives: Didactic training in motivation interviewing (MI) lacks efficacy, because opportunities to practice skills while being directly observed are rare. The goal of our educational innovation was to train interns in the advanced communication skills of motivation interviewing through a group observed standardized clinical experience (GOSCE). Our Learning Objectives were as follows: After an experiential learning session on MI, interns will be able to: 1. Identify opportunities to use MI with patients 2. Recognize "change talk" from a patient as an opportunity to use MI techniques 3. Use MI techniques when discussing behavior change with a patient Setting and Participants: 46 internal medicine interns in an academic internal medicine residency program. Description: Each session began with a 20 minute review of MI for behavior change given by a psychologist trained in Motivational Interviewing. Then, interns participated in a 3 station, one-hour long Group Observed Standardized Clinical Exercise (GOSCE). Interns worked in teams of 3, and for each station, one of the 3 interns was the active physician, while the other 2 observed the encounter. Each intern had an opportunity to be the active physician for a case. Each case was observed by one or two faculty members, one of whom was a psychologist trained in MI. After a 10 minute interaction with the standardized patient, the active physician received feedback on their MI skills and debriefed the encounter with the faculty and their peers. After the 3 cases, the session concluded with a group debrief and summary of the experience. Interns completed a retrospective pre/post survey to assess the impact of the session. Evaluation: Residents reported statistically significant improvement in all domains, including confidence with identifying opportunities to use MI, comfort using reflective and summary statements during MI, and likelihood of using motivational interviewing in future patient encounters. Qualitative comments after the session reflect that residents developed an appreciation for silence as a tool during MI, felt comfortable with tools such as decisional balance, and recognized the value of patient centered-ness during MI. Discussion/Reflection/Lessons Learned: Our interprofessional educational team (psychologists and internists) provided different perspective for both learners and our internal medicine faculty. Our residents appreciated practicing skills and receiving feedback in real time. This academic year (one year after the intern GOSCE), these same learners will participate in an OSCE that includes a case requiring motivational internviewing skills, and we will evaluate the durability of motivation interviewing skills taught during this session. We are interested in expanding opportunities to use GOSCE as a low stakes skills practice and development tool

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: Diagnostic tests account directly for 5% of healthcare costs, but influence decisions constituting 70% of health spending. Only 5% of ordered labs are actually " high value," depending on clinical circumstances. Low-value tests, defined as not appropriate for a given clinical scenario, are ordered in one in five clinic visits. Up to $ 750 billion is spent on these low-value tests, contributing to the estimated one-quarter to one-third of healthcare spending is on wasteful services. We sought to quantify test-specific low-value ordering behaviors in urban outpatient clinics across three standardized patient cases.
Method(s): Unannounced standardized patients (USPs-highly trained actors portraying patients with standardized case presentations) were introduced into medicine residents' primary care clinics in a large urban, safety net hospital over the past five years. The USPs simulated three common outpatient clinical scenarios: a " Well" visit, a visit with a chief complaint of " Fatigue," and a visit with a diagnosis of " Asthma." Diagnostic orders were extracted via retrospective chart review for these standardized visits. For each scenario, appropriateness of diagnostic testing was determined by reference to United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and relevant specialty society clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). " Wasteful" (over-ordered) tests were defined as those not explicitly indicated for the given scenario. Costs were derived from GoodRx.com according to local ZIP codes.
Result(s): The most commonly wasteful tests for the Asthma case were CBC (8% of 170 visits) and Chem-7 (6%), though the relative risk of over-ordering TSH was 3.8x that of other scenarios. The most commonly over-ordered tests for the Fatigue case were LFTs (14% of 148 visits) and HBV (5%), with LFTs ordered up to 15-fold more frequently than in other scenarios. The most commonly over-ordered tests for the Well case were BMP (35% of 124 visits), CBC (15%), LFTs (15%), and HBV (11%) ordered at rates up to 6.3x, 2.0x, 14.2x, and 7.4x higher than other scenarios. Finally, the average per patient excess costs were $ 8.27 (+/-$ 1.76), $ 6.79 (+/-$ 4.5), and $ 23.5 (+/-$ 9.34) for Asthma, Fatigue, and Well cases respectively.
Conclusion(s): Inappropriateness in test ordering patterns were observed through USP simulated cases. Certain tests (CBC, BMP, LFTs, and HBV) were more likely used wastefully across cases. Between cases, specific tests were ordered in an inappropriate manner (such as TSH for Asthma, LFTs for Fatigue, and BMP for Well visits). The per patient direct cost of low value testing rose above $ 20 per visit for the Well visit, though the Fatigue case exhibited the most variation. Notably, this excludes downstream (indirect) costs inestimatable from standardized encounters alone. Knowledge of wasteful utilization patterns associated with specific clinical scenarios can guide interventions targeting appropriate use of testing