Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) provide opportunity to measure residents' clinical skills in actual practice. USPs, or secret shoppers, are trained to ensure accurate case portrayal across encounters, making them optimal for tracking changes in skills longitudinally. At present, little is known about how residents handle USP visits with repeat cases. This study examines variation in resident communication and global domain scores when visited by the sameUSPcase at two separate time points during residency training.
METHOD(S): Primary care residents (n=46) were assessed twice by one of six standardized cases (asthma, fatigue, Hepatitis B concern, back pain, shoulder pain, or well visit) during the course of their residency, typically during their first and third training year. Upon visit completion, residents were rated using a behaviorally-anchored checklist. Communication domains assessed included info gathering (4 items), relationship development (5 items), and patient education (4 items). Other domains included patient activation (4 items) and satisfaction (4 items). Responses were scored as not done, partly done, or well done. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain. All cases were combined to create composite scores, due to small sample sizes per case. First and second visit domain scores were compared using a t-test. Finally, we grouped high performers (80% or higher on communication scores during their first visit) because this measure demonstrated competency.
RESULT(S): With cases combined, there were no significant differences based on time of assessment and changes in score between first and second visit were small. 14/46 (30%) learners who performed well on composite overall communication scores (80% or higher) during their first visit outperformed poorer communicators in patient satisfaction (93% vs 61%, P<.001) and activation (48% vs 18%, P<.001). In subsequent visits, these high performers performed at a similar level to their fellow residents, with no significant differences noted. Further, when looking at individual trajectories, individual learner scores in the communication domain increased between visits for 21 learners (46%), decreased for 19 (41%), and stayed same for 7 (15%).
CONCLUSION(S): Results suggest that a learning curve occurs between assessments during the first year in residency and subsequent assessments. This could be due to an increased capacity to engage with a patient occurring training progression, or due to a better understanding of addressing common chief complaints presented with our USP cases. Understanding causes of individual-level score decreases will enable tailoring of educational interventions suitable for specific learner trajectories, as will a deeper dive into the impact of the clinical microsystem on performance. We predict a more nuanced understanding of these mediating factors through our plan of increasing our repeat visit sample size

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.

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.