Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems rose to the challenges of COVID-19 by creating or expanding telehealth programs to ensure that patients could access care from home. Traditionally, though, physicians receive limited formal telemedicine training, which made preparedness for this transition uneven. We designed a survey for General Internal Medicine (GIM) physicians within our diverse health system to describe experiences with providing virtual patient care; with the ultimate goal of identifying actionable recommendations for health system leaders and medical educators.
METHOD(S): Surveys were sent to all faculty outpatient GIM physicians working at NYU Langone Health, NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue and Gouverneur, and the VA NY Harbor Health System (n=378) in May & June of 2020. Survey items consisted of Likert and open-ended questions on experience with televisits (13 items) and attitudes toward care (24 items). Specific questions covered barriers to communication over remote modalities.
RESULT(S): 195/378 (52%) responded to the survey. 96% of providers reported having problems establishing a connection from the patient's end while 84% reported difficultly establishing connection on the provider's end. Using interpreter services over the phone was also problematic for providers, with 38% reporting troubles. Regarding teamness, 35% of physicians found it difficult to share information with healthcare team members during virtual visits and 42% found it difficult to work collaboratively with team members, both when compared to in-person visits. When subdivided, 24% of private and 40% of public providers found info sharing more difficult (p<0.04). 31% of private providers and 45% of public found team collaboration more difficult (ns). Physicians also identified challenges in several domains including physical exams (97%), establishing relationships with new patients (74%), taking a good history (48%), and educating patients (35%). In thematic analysis of open-ended comments, themes emerged related to technological challenges, new systems issues, and new patient/provider communication experiences. Positives noted by physicians included easier communication with patients who often struggle with keeping in-person appointments, easier remote monitoring, and a more thorough understanding of patients' home lives.
CONCLUSION(S): Provider experience differences were rooted in the type of technology employed. Safety-net physicians conducted mostly telephonic visits while private outpatient physicians utilized video visits, despite both using the same brand of electronic medical record system. As we consider a new normal and prolonged community transmission of COVID-19, it is essential to establish telemedicine training, tools, and protocols that meet the needs of both patients and physicians across diverse settings. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Describe challenges and barriers to effective communication and clinical skill utilization during televisits LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Conceptualize recommendations for educational curricula and health service improvement areas

BACKGROUND: Primary care (PC) residency training is a period that provides opportunity to develop skills required for independent practice. Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs), or secret shoppers, are a controlled measure of clinical skills in actual practice. We sought to describe differences in core clinical communication skills over the last decade for PC residents.
METHOD(S): USPs presented as a new patient for a comprehensive visit while portraying one of six unique, outpatient cases (with either chronic or acute symptomology). Actors received extensive training to ensure accurate case portrayal. Each completed a post-visit, behaviorally anchored checklist (not, partly, or well done) in order to provide extensive, actionable feedback. A standardized checklist was used, consisting of individual items across domains including information gathering, relationship development, patient education, activation and satisfaction. Chronbach's alpha for domains ranged from 0.62- 0.89. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain and compared by year for all learners and by PGY within year for the primary care (PC) residency. Differences were assessed using ANOVA. Case portrayal accuracy was ensured using audio tape review.
RESULT(S): 396 visits were conducted with PC residents in our urban, safetynet hospital system between 2013 and 2020. While looking across the 8 years, there was variation in mean scores per domain, though Kruskal-Wallis H test did not show any statistical difference. Relationship development and info gathering were the highest rated skills, at 75% and 76% well done, respectively, on average. Patient satisfaction and activation remained uniformly low across years, with scores averaging 36% and 39% well done, respectively. Multi-variate analysis showed no significant changes across domains by cohort (grad year) and PGY levels. Further, there were no significant differences by PGY year or cohort in terms of scoring using a two-way ANOVA, though there was a slight upward trend in relationship development skills since 2017 for all PGY levels. There were similar trends in most domains, with 2020 scores being higher than previous years. There were no significant differences across domains while looking at PGY1 learners only.
CONCLUSION(S): While there were no significant differences in scores, we can postulate that PC residents enter the residency with consistent foundational communication skills, possibly attributable to training. We elected to use the visit itself as the unit of analysis, which does not allow us to tease out differences in individual learners. We also have small sample sizes for earlier years of the USP visit program, which may hinder results. Regardless, results warrant further research in order to gain a more thorough understanding, possibly in relation to curricular trends. Further study will look at individual resident differences and ideally provide insight into curricular improvement areas. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Describe assessment measures LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Explore clinical competency

BACKGROUND: NYU uses the same 14-item checklist for assessing medical student communication skills across our curriculum, which includes highquality Objective Structured Clinical Skills Exams throughout the first three years of medical school: a 3-station Introductory Clinical Experience OSCE (ICE), a 3-station end-of-clinical skills OSCE (Practice of Medicine; POM); and an 8-station, high- stakes OSCE (Comprehensive Clinical Skills Exam; CCSE) after core clerkship. We describe how skills change throughout school and explore how patterns vary by cohort (class) in ways that could be explained by admissions criteria, measurement quality, and/or curriculum changes.
METHOD(S): Three domains are assessed: Info gathering (6 items), relationship development (5 items); and patient education & counseling (3 items). Checklist items use a 3-point scale (not done, partly, well done) with behavioral anchors. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) exceeds .75 for all subdomains and across all years. Domains are supported by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Mean average % well done was calculated across cases and individuals for each subdomain in an OSCE and compared over the OSCEs and between 8 classes of medical school students entering from 2009 to 2016 (graduating 2013 to 2020) (n=1569).
RESULT(S): Cohorts showed similar patterns communication skills trajectories - improvement over time. Despite changes in admissions criteria and processes, cohorts did not differ in terms of demographics, undergraduate GPA, or MCAT scores. Variability in scores decreased in all cohorts over time while communication improved. Patient education & counseling was significantly and substantially lower than other domains. In terms of cohort effects, communication scores for the entering class of 2013 at the start of medical school (ICE OSCE) were significantly higher than the previous 4. At the end of MS2, scores were similar for cohorts for info gathering and relationship development domains (and high, mean range=77-87% well done) but patient education & counseling varied: Improvement from the 1st to 3rd cohort and then decline for the last 5 cohorts. Within the CCSE (8-station pass/fail, MS3), communication scores increased steadily across entering classes, especially from cohort 4 on. These changes over time and between cohorts were mapped onto a priori descriptions of curricular, measurement and admission changes.
CONCLUSION(S): Our cohort data showed interesting and complex patterns. This study reinforces some limitations of linking curriculum to performance (e.g., no direct measures of the curriculum in terms of content, process and intensity over time, limited data on what makes cohorts different, variable measurement over time, and being unable to control for broader trends likely to influence both cohort and time effects) while also demonstrating the promise of longitudinal perspectives on the development of core competencies. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Understand cohort performance in relation to curricular trends. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Describe variation in performance

BACKGROUND: During the rapid onset of the pandemic, clinicians transitioned from traditional outpatient practice to telemedicine for triaging COVID-19 patients and providing routine care to patient panels. Telemedicine training and assessment had not been systematically incorporated into most residencies. In response, a scheduled Internal Medicine (IM) Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) was adapted to a telemedicineemphasized, virtual modality to become a just-in- time learning experience for trainees.
METHOD(S): Remote cases deployed on common web-based video conference platform included; (1) a potential COVID-19 triage, (2) educating on buprenorphine maintenance, (2) counselling on mammogram screening, and (3) addressing frustration with electronic health record documentation. Simulated Patients (SPs) rated residents on communication skills, patient activation and satisfaction, and case-specific telemedicine items. Analyses included a comparison of domain scores (mean % well done) for residents who participated in both the 2020 remote and 2019 in-person OSCEs, and a review of written resident feedback.
RESULT(S): Fewer than half (46%) of 2020's residents (n=23) performed well on the COVID-19 case's telemedicine skill domain. Residents excelled in using nonverbal communication to enrich on-camera communication (100%), but struggled with virtual physical exams (13%), gathering information (4%), and optimizing technology (4%). Residents expressed interest in more opportunity to practice telemedicine skills going forward. Residents' overall COVID-19 knowledge was fair (54% of items were rated as 'well done'). Fewer than half (45%) advised the SP that testing was not available at the time, but that he should call the city hotline for information, and about half (55%) provided quarantine/ home care instructions. In comparing 2020 (virtual) to 2019 (in-person) OSCE scores, residents who participated in both assessments (n=9) performed similarly on communication skills including information gathering (84% vs. 83%), and relationship development (93% vs. 92%), patient satisfaction (72% vs. 80%) and activation (65% vs. 66%). Patient education scores were significantly lower during the virtual OSCE (40% vs. 76%, P=.008).
CONCLUSION(S): Our reformulated OSCE accomplished three goals: (1) physically distancing residents from SPs, (2) providing residents the opportunity to practice critical telemedicine skills, and (3) alerting our educators to curricular improvement areas in virtual physical exam, patient education, gathering information and optimizing technology. Our methods are scalable at other institutions and have applications to the larger medical and clinical education community. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Describe challenges and barriers to effective communication and clinical skill utilization during televisits. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Understand resident physician practice patterns and communication regarding infectious disease

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.

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: Moral distress is defined as a situation in which an individual believes they know the ethically appropriate action to take but are unable to take that action. The concept ofmoral distress is increasingly recognized as an important mediator of occupational stress and burnout in healthcare, particularly in the nursing literature. However, there is a dearth of literature focusing on moral distress among physician trainees, particularly as regards the clinical training environment. This study explores the phenomenon of moral distress among internal medicine trainees, with an emphasis on the contexts of clinical training and professional role development.
METHOD(S): We report qualitative data from a mixed methods prospective observational cohort study of internal medicine (IM) residents and associated faculty at a large, urban, academic medical institution. Five focus groups were conducted with 15 internal medicine residents (PGY1- 3), between January and October 2019. In each focus group trained facilitators conducted semi-structured interviews using prompts which focused on definitions of, experiences with, and consequences of moral distress. Transcripts were independently coded by investigators, and analyzed by major themes and sub-themes. Discrepant themes and codes were reviewed by the full research team to establish clarity and consensus. Data were analyzed using Dedoose software.
RESULT(S): Focus group participants were equally distributed by gender (7 women, 8 men) and across training year (30% PGY1, 20% PGY2 40% PGY3). Experience with moral distress was universal among participants. Trainees identified several drivers of moral distress that were unique to their professional development as clinicians and their role as trainees/ learners within clinical teams, including: feelings of inadequacy in clinical or procedural skills, being asked to performduties outside of their scope of practice, discomfort with the idea of 'practicing' skills on patients, poor team communication, disagreements with senior team members, experiences of disempowerment as junior team members, and overwhelming or inappropriate administrative or non-clinical burdens. Participants also identified unique, place-based moral distress across different clinical environments, including intensive care units, wards, and outpatient environments, aswell as between private, public, and government-run hospital facilities.
CONCLUSION(S): Physician trainees experience considerable moral distress in the context of their professional development, with unique drivers of moral distress identified in the training and clinical team context. This improved understanding of factors unique to the trainees' experience has implications for tailoring educational experiences as professional development activities, as well as potential wellness- and resilience-building among physician trainees. It may also inform the training of physician leaders and seniors clinicians who engage with trainees in learning and clinical environments

BACKGROUND: The importance of addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, but less is known about how physicians specifically elicit, respond to, and document these determinants. We sought to describe resident practices when caring for a patient whose SDoH is integral to accurate diagnosis and treatment using Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs).
METHOD(S): USPs were used (n=68) to assess how medicine residents responded to the consistent portrayal of a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her living situation (moldy, dilapidated housing) might be contributing to her symptoms. USPs, or "secret shoppers", were sent to two of New York's safety-net hospitals. Resident practices were assessed by the USP during a post-visit behaviorally-anchored checklist (7 items) and through a systematic chart review (3 items). Checklist items included whether or not a provider explored and fully elicited the USPs concerns, how they responded once shared, and what the provider actually did in response. Chart review items included whether or not a provider documented their patient's housing concerns in the history of present illness (HPI), problem list, or through use of a billingrelated Z-code.
RESULT(S): 68/79 consented residents participated: 11 PGY1 (16%), 31 PGY2 (46%), and 26 PGY3 (38%). 65% (44/68) of residents elicited the patient's housing SDoH and of those, 75% (33/44) responded by acknowledging/exploring and providing notes/practical support. 30% (10/33) connected the patient to informative resources or direct referral. Less than half (14/33; 42%) of those who acknowledge/explored documented appropriately in the EMR. No residents documented housing in the problem list or with a housing-related ICD10 Z-code. Of the 14 high performers, 6 successfully elicited, acknowledged, and documented housing concerns for one of our other five SDoH cases. More than half (55%) of the residents who elicited housing information connected the mold to the asthma exacerbation as a possible trigger, either during clinical interaction or in documentation. All but one (93%) of those who el icited, acknowledged, and documented made this connection.
CONCLUSION(S): Using USPs to directly observe resident practice behaviors in gathering information about, documenting and taking action on a consistently portrayed SDoH case closely linked to clinical symptoms is the first piece of the puzzle needed to better understand education and training that prepares physicians to address SDoH. Our study identifies practice gaps at all stages - adequately collecting information, understanding the clinical/ treatment consequences of, effectively responding to needs, and in documentation of SDoH. Future research should explore the influence of the clinical microsystem (e.g., SDoH screening tools, available resources and referrals, and workflows) on physician SDoH-related practices

BACKGROUND: Moral distress is defined as a situation in which an individual believes they know the ethically appropriate action to take but are unable to take that action. The concept of moral distress is increasingly recognized as an important mediator of occupational stress and burnout in medicine, particularly in the nursing profession. However, there is a dearth of literature on moral distress among physician trainees, with the majority focused on dilemmas in end-of-life care. This study explores the phenomenon of moral distress among internal medicine trainees, with particular focus on drivers, situational contexts, and adaptive strategies such as coping mechanisms.
METHOD(S): We report qualitative data from a mixed methods prospective observational cohort study of internal medicine (IM) residents and associated faculty at a large, urban, academic medical institution. Five focus groups were conducted with 15 internal medicine residents (PGY1- 3), between January and October 2019. In each focus group trained facilitators conducted semi-structured interviews using prompts which focused on definitions of, experiences with, and consequences of moral distress. Transcripts were independently coded by investigators, and analyzed by major themes and sub-themes. Discrepant themes and codes were reviewed by the full research team to establish clarity and consensus. Data were analyzed using Dedoose software.
RESULT(S): Focus group participants were equally distributed by gender (7 women, 8 men) and across training year (30% PGY1, 20% PGY2 40% PGY3). Experience with moral distress was universal among participants, and was identified across four major domains: personal values and morals, professional competency and training challenges, interpersonal relationships and conflicts, and systems/structural issues. Participants identified unique, place-based moral distress across different clinical environments, including intensive care units, wards, and outpatient environments, as well as between private, public, and government- run hospital facilities. Participants described a number of adaptive mechanisms for managing moral distress, including social support and connectivity, humor, and disassociation.
CONCLUSION(S): Physician trainees experience considerable moral distress across multiple domains during the course of their training. They also develop unique adaptive strategies and copingmechanisms tomanage and learn from distressing experiences. This improved understanding ofmoral distress among physician trainees, particularly drivers and protective factors, has important implications for the training of physicians, and may have a role in promoting wellness and resilience among physicians across the training and professional pipeline

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the importance of addressing Social Determinants of Health, less is known about how members of the care team respond to patient-volunteered SDoH - especially when the determinant is related to financial insecurity. With increasing calls for universal screening for SDoH - what do teams do when a patient shares a financial concern? We report on the use of Unannounced Standardized Patients (USP) to assess how primary care teams respond to volunteered information about financial insecurity and whether an audit/ feedback intervention (with targeted education included) improved that response.
METHOD(S): Highly trained USPs (secret shoppers) portrayed six common scenarios (fatigue, asthma, Hepatitis B concern, shoulder pain, back pain, well visit). USPs volunteered a financial concern (fear of losing job, challenges with financially supporting parent, trouble meeting rent) to the medical assistant (MA) and then again to their provider and assessed the response of both the MA (did they acknowledge and/ or forward the information to the provider?) and the provider (did they acknowledge/ explore and/or provide resources/referrals?). A total of 383 USP visits were delivered to 5 care teams in 2 safety-net clinics. Providers were medicine residents. 123 visits were fielded during the baseline period (Feb 2017-Jan 2018); 185 visits during the intervention period (Jan 2018-Mar 2019) throughout which quarterly audit/feedback reports of the teams' response to the USPs' SDoH and targeted education on SDoH were distributed. 75 follow-up phase visits were fielded (Apr- Dec 2019). Analyses compared rates of MA and provider response to the volunteered financial insecurity issue across the 3 periods (chi-square, z-scores).
RESULT(S): The baseline rate of responding in some way to the volunteered information was high for both the MA (86% acknowledged) and the providers (100% responded). These overall rates of response did not change substantially or significantly across the three time periods (MA: Intervention period = 87%, Follow- Up period=90%; Provider: Intervention period=98%; Follow-Up period=98%). Rates of acting upon the volunteered information also remained quite consistent across the time periods: from 29 to 35% of MA forwarded the information to the provider across the 3 time periods and from 22 to 28% of providers in each intervention period gave the patient resources or a referral (mostly resources).
CONCLUSION(S): Our findings highlight the importance of patients directly telling team members about a financial concern. Future research should explore whether screening tools are effective in instigating a response. Audit/feedback reports with targeted educational components did not appear to influence the teams' response unlike what we found for housing and social concerns that had to be elicited. Whether this is due to differences in volunteered vs. elicited SDoH or to the nature of the SDoH (financial vs housing/social) warrants further investigation