Faculty Bibliography

Background/Objective: A growing number of biomedical doctoral graduates are entering the biotechnology and industry workforce, though most lack training in business practice. Entrepreneurs can benefit from venture creation and commercialization training that is largely absent from standard biomedical educational curricula. The NYU Biomedical Entrepreneurship Educational Program (BEEP) seeks to fill this training gap to prepare and motivate biomedical entrepreneurs to develop an entrepreneurial skill set, thus accelerating the pace of innovation in technology and business ventures. Methods: The NYU BEEP Model was developed and implemented with funding from NIDDK and NCATS. The program consists of a core introductory course, topic-based interdisciplinary workshops, venture challenges, on-line modules, and mentorship from experts. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of the core, introductory course, Foundations of Biomedical Startups, through the use of pre/post-course surveys and free-response answers. Results: After 2 years, 153 participants (26% doctoral students, 23% post-doctoral PhDs, 20% faculty, 16% research staff, 15% other) have completed the course. Evaluation data show self-assessed knowledge gain in all domains. The percentage of students rating themselves as either competent or on the way to being an expert in all areas was significantly higher post-course (P < 0.05). In each content area, the percentages of participants rating themselves as very interested increased post-course. 95% of those surveyed reported the course met its objectives, and 95% reported a higher likelihood of pursuing commercialization of discoveries post-course. Conclusion: NYU BEEP can serve as a model to develop similar curricula/programs to enhance entrepreneurial activity of early-stage researchers.

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.

PURPOSE:To compare perception of accelerated and traditional medical students, with respect to satisfaction with education quality, and the learning environment, residency readiness, burnout, debt, and career plans. METHOD:Customized 2017 and 2018 Medical School Graduation Questionnaires (GQs) were analyzed using independent samples t tests for means and chi-square tests for percentages, comparing responses of accelerated MD program graduates (accelerated pathway [AP] students) from 9 schools with those of non-AP graduates from the same 9 schools and non-AP graduates from all surveyed schools. RESULTS:GQ completion rates for the 90 AP students, 2,573 non-AP students from AP schools, and 38,116 non-AP students from all schools in 2017 and 2018 were 74.4%, 82.3%, and 83.3%, respectively. AP students were as satisfied with the quality of their education and felt as prepared for residency as non-AP students. AP students reported a more positive learning climate than non-AP students from AP schools and from all schools as measured by the student-faculty interaction (15.9 vs 14.4 and 14.3, respectively; P < .001 for both pairwise comparisons) and emotional climate (10.7 vs 9.6 and 9.6, respectively; P = .004 and .003, respectively) scales. AP students had less debt than non-AP students (P < .001), and more planned to care for underserved populations and practice family medicine than non-AP students from AP schools (55.7% vs 33.9% and 37.7% vs 9.4%; P = .002 and < .001, respectively). Family expectations were a more common influence on career plans for AP students than for non-AP students from AP schools and from all schools (26.2% vs 11.3% and 11.7%, respectively; P < .001 for both pairwise comparisons). CONCLUSIONS:These findings support accelerated programs as a potentially important intervention to address workforce shortages and rising student debt without negative impacts on student perception of burnout, education quality, or residency preparedness.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Little outcome data exist on 3-year MD (3YMD) programs to guide residency program directors (PDs) in deciding whether to select these graduates for their programs. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare performance outcomes of 3YMD and 4-year MD (4YMD) students at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Methods/UNASSIGNED:In 2020, using the Kirkpatrick 4-level evaluation model, outcomes from 3 graduating cohorts of 3YMD students (2016-2018) were compared with the 4YMD counterparts. Results/UNASSIGNED:=.03), other metrics and overall intern ratings did not differ by pathway. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Exploratory findings from a single institution suggest that 3YMD students performed similarly to 4YMD students in medical school and the first year of residency.