Faculty Bibliography

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

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the importance of addressing Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), less is known about how physicians elicit, respond to, and act upon their patients' SDoH information. We report on the results of a study that 1) sent Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) with programmed SDoH into clinics to assess whether providers uncovered, explored and acted upon the SDoH, 2) provided audit/feedback reports with educational components to clinical teams, and 3) tracked the impact of that intervention on provider response to SDoH.
METHOD(S): Highly trained USPs (secret shoppers) portrayed six scenarios (fatigue, asthma, Hepatitis B concern, shoulder pain, back pain, well-visit), each with specific housing (overcrowding, late rent, and mold) and social isolation (shyness, recent break up, and anxiety) concerns that they shared if asked broadly about. USPs assessed team and provider SDoH practices (eliciting, acknowledging/exploring, and providing resources and/or referrals). 383 USP visits were made to residents in 5 primary care teams in 2 urban, safety- net clinics. 123 visits were fielded during baseline period (Feb 2017-Jan 2018); 185 visits during 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; and 75 follow-up phase visits were fielded (Apr-Dec 2019). Analyses compared rates of eliciting and responding to SDoH across the 3 periods (chi- square, z-scores). One team, by design, did not receive the intervention and serves as a comparison group.
RESULT(S): Among the intervention teams, the rate of eliciting the housing SDoH increased from 46% at baseline to 59% during the intervention period (p=.045) and also increased, but not significantly, for the social issue (40% to 52%, p=.077). There was a significant increase from baseline to intervention in providing resources/referrals for housing (from 7% to 24%, p=.001) and for social isolation (from 13% to 24%, p=.042) (mostly resources, very few referrals were made). The comparison team's rates followed a different pattern: eliciting the housing issue and the social isolation issue decreased from baseline to the intervention period (housing: 61% to 45%; social isolation: 39% to 33% of visits) and the rate of providing resources/referrals stayed steady at 13% for both. In the cases where SDoH were most clinically relevant, baseline rates of identifying the SDoH were high (>70%) but rates of acting on the SDoH increased significantly from baseline to intervention. Increases seen in the intervention period were not sustained in the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION(S): Giving providers SDoH data along with targeted education was associated with increased but unsustained rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social issues. The USP methodology was an effective means of presenting controlled SDoH and providing audit/feedback data. Ongoing education and feedback may be needed

BACKGROUND:Medical Education research suffers from several methodological limitations including too many single institution, small sample-sized studies, limited access to quality data, and insufficient institutional support. Increasing calls for medical education outcome data and quality improvement research have highlighted a critical need for uniformly clean and easily accessible data. Research registries may fill this gap. In 2006, the Research on Medical Education Outcomes (ROMEO) unit of the Program for Medical Innovations and Research (PrMEIR) at New York University's (NYU) Robert I. Grossman School of Medicine established the Database for Research on Academic Medicine (DREAM). DREAM is a database of routinely collected, de-identified undergraduate (UME, medical school leading up to the Medical Doctor degree) and graduate medical education (GME, residency also known as post graduate education leading to eligibility for specialty board certification) outcomes data available, through application, to researchers. Learners are added to our database through annual consent sessions conducted at the start of educational training. Based on experience, we describe our methods in creating and maintaining DREAM to serve as a guide for institutions looking to build a new or scale up their medical education registry. RESULTS:At present, our UME and GME registries have consent rates of 90% (n = 1438/1598) and 76% (n = 1988/2627), respectively, with a combined rate of 81% (n = 3426/4225). 7% (n = 250/3426) of these learners completed both medical school and residency at our institution. DREAM has yielded a total of 61 individual studies conducted by medical education researchers and a total of 45 academic journal publications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We have built a community of practice through the building of DREAM and hope, by persisting in this work the full potential of this tool and the community will be realized. While researchers with access to the registry have focused primarily on curricular/ program evaluation, learner competency assessment, and measure validation, we hope to expand the output of the registry to include patient outcomes by linking learner educational and clinical performance across the UME-GME continuum and into independent practice. Future publications will reflect our efforts in reaching this goal and will highlight the long-term impact of our collaborative work.

Understanding how previous experiences with interprofessional education and collaboration inform health care provider perspectives is important for developing interprofessional interventions at the graduate level. The purpose of this study was to examine how previous work experiences of graduate level health professions students inform perspectives about interprofessional education and collaboration. Drawing from program evaluation data of two separate graduate level interprofessional education interventions based in primary care and home health care, we conducted a qualitative secondary data analysis of 75 interviews generated by focus groups and individual interviews with graduate students from 4 health professions cadres. Using directed content analysis, the team coded to capture descriptions of interprofessional education or collaboration generated from participants' previous work experiences. Coding revealed 173 discrete descriptions related to previous experiences of interprofessional education or collaboration. Three themes were identified from the analysis that informed participant perspectives: Previous educational experiences (including work-based training); previous work experiences; and organizational factors and interprofessional collaboration. Experiences varied little between professions except when aspects of professional training created unique circumstances. The study reveals important differences between graduate and undergraduate learners in health professions programs that can inform interprofessional education and collaboration intervention design.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:Evidence-based medicine practices of medical students in clinical scenarios are not well understood. Optimal foraging theory (OFT) is one framework that could be useful in breaking apart information-seeking patterns to determine effectiveness and efficiency of different methods of information seeking. The aims of this study were to use OFT to determine the number and type of resources used in information seeking when medical students answer a clinical question, to describe common information-seeking patterns, and identify patterns associated with higher quality answers to a clinical question. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Medical students were observed via screen recordings while they sought evidence related to a clinical question and provided a written response for what they would do for that patient based on the evidence that they found. Results/UNASSIGNED:Half (51%) of study participants used only 1 source before answering the clinical question. While the participants were able to successfully and efficiently navigate point-of-care tools and search engines, searching PubMed was not favored, with only half (48%) of PubMed searches being successful. There were no associations between information-seeking patterns and the quality of answers to the clinical question. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Clinically experienced medical students most frequently relied on point-of-care tools alone or in combination with PubMed to answer a clinical question. OFT can be used as a framework to understand the information-seeking practices of medical students in clinical scenarios. This has implications for both teaching and assessment of evidence-based medicine in medical students.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Mentorship is crucial for academic success. And yet, there are few mentoring programs that address the needs of underrepresented, racially/ethnically diverse junior faculty conducting health-related research in the United States. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To expand mentoring capacity for these racially/ethnically diverse faculty, we developed a Peer Mentor Development Program (PMDP) to prepare near-peers, who have similar characteristics and personal experiences, to provide support to participants in an NIH-PRIDE funded Institute. The PMDP program is designed based on the 8-year experience of the Mentor Development Program of the NYU-Health and Hospitals Clinical Translational Science Institute. Annually, up to six alumni are selected into the PMDP, participate in the 12-hour program over 4 days, are paired with 1 to 3 scholar participants to mentor and join monthly PMDP conference calls during the ensuing year. Results/UNASSIGNED:We describe the program, participant experience and lessons learned from our first 18 peer mentors in three PMDP cohorts. Additionally, all 18 peer mentors completed a post-evaluation survey to assess the program. Overall, peers agreed that participating in the PMDP enhanced most of the specific skills targeted. Participants rated 53%-86% of skills as "more than before" participating in PMDP, demonstrating the appreciation and impact of the program. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The PMDP may be a model for higher education and academic medicine programs committed to mentoring and retaining racially/ethnically diverse faculty and ultimately contributing to reducing entrenched health disparities between majority and minority populations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Two developing forces have achieved prominence in medical education: the advent of competency-based assessments and a growing commitment to expand access to medicine for a broader range of learners with a wider array of preparation. Remediation is intended to support all learners to achieve sufficient competence. Therefore, it is timely to provide practical guidelines for remediation in medical education that clarify best practices, practices to avoid, and areas requiring further research, in order to guide work with both individual struggling learners and development of training program policies. METHODS:Collectively, we generated an initial list of Do's, Don'ts, and Don't Knows for remediation in medical education, which was then iteratively refined through discussions and additional evidence-gathering. The final guidelines were then graded for the strength of the evidence by consensus. RESULTS:We present 26 guidelines: two groupings of Do's (systems-level interventions and recommendations for individual learners), along with short lists of Don'ts and Don't Knows, and our interpretation of the strength of current evidence for each guideline. CONCLUSIONS:Remediation is a high-stakes, highly complex process involving learners, faculty, systems, and societal factors. Our synthesis resulted in a list of guidelines that summarize the current state of educational theory and empirical evidence that can improve remediation processes at individual and institutional levels. Important unanswered questions remain; ongoing research can further improve remediation practices to ensure the appropriate support for learners, institutions, and society.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Systems-based Practice 3 (SBP 3) in the orthopedic residency developmental milestones evaluates residents' knowledge, understanding, and utilization of the electronic medical record (EMR). In order to better assess SBP 3, we conducted a review of residents' clinical notes in order to quantify the current state of orthopedic residents' documentation in the EMR. The purpose of this study was to objectively evaluate orthopedic resident documentation in the EMR. METHODS:Orthopedic resident medical notes from a single orthopedic residency at one academic medical center were scored by faculty members who had directly observed the clinical encounter. These notes were then independently scored by one investigator (N.F.) using clinical contentspecific, objective criteria. Sixty-five medical records were reviewed. All 62 orthopedic residents anonymously completed an 84-question survey on the value of EMR utilization and documentation within the medical record. RESULTS:Many key elements necessary to diagnosing a patient's injury and developing a treatment plan were often omitted (e.g., "Mechanism of Injury" in 32.3% of records), and the majority of notes did not include "Decision Making and Patient Preference" (95.2%) or "Risks/Benefits of Surgery" (93.7%). However, 95.2% of residents agreed that their notes reflect their medical knowledge and 96.8% agreed that their notes reflect their clinical reasoning. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of this objective review revealed significant deficits in orthopedic resident documentation not identified by faculty observers.