Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: : There is a need to build the ranks of health care professionals engaged in substance abuse (SA)-focused clinical research. The authors simultaneously developed and evaluated SARET, the Substance Abuse Research Education and Training program. The fundamental goal of this interprofessional program is to stimulate medical, dental, and nursing student interest and experience in SA research. Evaluation aims to understand program feasibility and acceptability and to assess short-term impact. METHODS: : SARET comprises 2 main components: stipend-supported research mentorships and a Web-based module series, consisting of 6, interactive, multimedia modules addressing core SA research topics, delivered via course curricula and in the research mentorships. Authors assessed program feasibility and impact on student interest in conducting SA research by tracking participation and conducting participant focus groups and online surveys. RESULTS: : Thirty early health care professional students completed mentorships (25 summer, 5 yearlong) and 1324 completed at least 1 Web-module. SARET was considered attractive for the opportunity to conduct clinically oriented research and to work with health care professionals across disciplines. Mentorship students reported positive impact on their vision of SA-related clinical care, more positive attitudes about research, and, in some cases, change in career plans. Web-based modules were associated with enhanced interest in SA (35% increase, P = 0.005, in those somewhat/very interested for neurobiology module) and SA research (+38%, P < 0.001 for activation, +45%, P < 0.001 for personal impact, +7%, P = 0.089 for neurobiology). CONCLUSIONS: : The SARET program stimulates SA clinical and research interest among students of nursing, medicine, and dentistry and may lend itself to dissemination.

This article describes the creation of an objective structured teaching examination (OSTE) to assess a dental faculty development program. An OSTE is a performance-based measure that utilizes standardized students and is designed to measure observable teaching skills. In spring 2010, the authors developed, implemented, and evaluated an OSTE to assess a New York University College of Dentistry (NYUCD) faculty development program, Class ACTS (Advanced Clinical Teaching Scholars). They created a three-station OSTE to measure changes in teaching skills resulting from participation in Class ACTS. Dental student teaching assistants were trained to act as standardized students and patients and to use the rating forms. The faculty members' OSTE scores and ratings increased after participating in the Class ACTS program in all fifteen teaching domains tested, and statistically significant improvements occurred in nine of the fifteen domains. A search of the relevant literature suggests that this is the first time that an OSTE has been used to assess a faculty development program in dental education. This study's results appear to support NYUCD's faculty development efforts to improve the teaching skills of its faculty members.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how patients served by safety-net hospitals utilize and respond to hospital quality data. OBJECTIVE: To understand how vulnerable, lower income patients make health care decisions and define quality of care and whether hospital quality data factor into such decisions and definitions. METHODS: Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods were used to gather primary data from patients at an urban, tertiary-care safety-net hospital. The study hospital is a member of the first public hospital system to voluntarily post hospital quality data online for public access. Patients were recruited from outpatient and inpatient clinics. Surveys were used to collect data on participants' sociodemographic characteristics, health literacy, health care experiences, and satisfaction variables. Focus groups were used to explore a representative sample of 24 patients' health care decision making and views of quality. Data from focus group transcripts were iteratively coded and analyzed by the authors. RESULTS: Focus group participants were similar to the broader diverse, low-income clinic POPULATION: Participants reported exercising choice in making decisions about where to seek health care. Multiple sources influenced decision-making processes including participants' own beliefs and values, social influences, and prior experiences. Hospital quality data were notably absent as a source of influence in health care decision making for this population largely because participants were unaware of its existence. Participants' views of hospital quality were influenced by the quality and efficiency of services provided (with an emphasis on the doctor-patient relationship) and patient centeredness. When presented with it, patients appreciated the hospital quality data and, with guidance, were interested in incorporating it into health care decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest directions for optimizing the presentation, content, and availability of hospital quality data. Future research will explore how similar populations form and make choices based on presentation of hospital quality data.

BACKGROUND: Teaching professionalism effectively to fully engaged residents is a significant challenge. A key question is whether the integration of professionalism into residency education leads to a change in resident culture. METHODS: The goal of this study was to assess whether professionalism has taken root in the surgical resident culture 3 years after implementing our professionalism curriculum. Evidence was derived from 3 studies: (1) annual self-assessments of the residents' perceived professionalism abilities to perform 20 defined tasks representing core Accrediting Council on Graduate Medical Education professionalism domains, (2) objective metrics of their demonstrated professionalism skills as rated by standardized patients annually using the objective structure clinical examination tool, and (3) a national survey of the Surgical Professionalism and Interpersonal Communications Education Study Group. RESULTS: Study 1: aggregate perceived professionalism among surgical residents shows a statistically significant positive trend over time (P = .016). Improvements were seen in all 6 domains: accountability, ethics, altruism, excellence, patient sensitivity, and respect. Study 2: the cohort of residents followed up over 3 years showed a marked improvement in their professionalism skills as rated by standardized patients using the objective structure clinical examination tool. Study 3: 41 members of the national Surgical Professionalism and Interpersonal Communications Education Study Group rated their residents' skills in admitting mistakes, delivering bad news, communication, interdisciplinary respect, cultural competence, and handling stress. Twenty-nine of the 41 responses rated their residents as 'slightly better' or 'much better' compared with 5 years ago (P = .001). Thirty-four of the 41 programs characterized their department's leadership view toward professionalism as 'much better' compared with 5 years ago. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 assessment methods suggest that residents feel increasingly prepared to effectively deal with the professionalism challenges they face. Although professionalism seminars may have seemed like an oddity several years ago, residents today recognize their importance and value their professionalism skills. As importantly, department chairpersons report that formal professionalism education for residents is viewed more favorably compared with 5 years ago

BACKGROUND: To determine whether a 'lay' rater could assess clinical reasoning, interrater reliability was measured between physician and lay raters of patient notes written by medical students as part of an 8-station objective structured clinical examination. METHODS: Seventy-five notes were rated on core elements of clinical reasoning by physician and lay raters independently, using a scoring guide developed by physician consensus. Twenty-five notes were rerated by a 2nd physician rater as an expert control. Kappa statistics and simple percentage agreement were calculated in 3 areas: evidence for and against each diagnosis and diagnostic workup. RESULTS: Agreement between physician and lay raters for the top diagnosis was as follows: supporting evidence, 89% (kappa = .72); evidence against, 89% (kappa = .81); and diagnostic workup, 79% (kappa = .58). Physician rater agreement was 83% (kappa = .59), 92% (kappa = .87), and 96% (kappa = .87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive scoring guide, interrater reliability for physician and lay raters was comparable with reliability between 2 expert physician raters