Faculty Bibliography

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: A core responsibility of medical educators is to foster a strong sense of medical professional identity (PI). Few studies specifically examine the qualities that constitute the PI of physicians recognized for exemplary professionalism. We describe those qualities based on an assessment of PI to inform educational efforts and support learners' development of PI.
METHOD(S): We used Colby and Damon's criteria for selection of moral exemplars (1992) to invite nominations of exemplary faculty physicians at NYUGSOM from faculty and trainees. Participants completed the Professional Identity Essay (PIE), a 9-question reflective writing measure based on a wellknown model of adult development that explores meaning making on PI (Bebeau & Lewis, 2004; Kegan, 1982, 1994). Two raters with extensive training and experience in adult developmental theory rated PIE responses for stage or transition phase. PI stages include independent operator, teamoriented idealist, self-defining, and self-transforming. These stages reflect increasing complexity and internalization of PI. We also gathered information on specialty, years in practice, gender, and race/ethnicity.
RESULT(S): Two hundred and twelve faculty were nominated; 35 were invited to participate (based on number of nominations, diversity of ages, backgrounds and career stage), and 21 completed scorable PIEs. They were from 13 specialties; mean career length was 21.5 years (range 6-45), and 35% were female. All but 2 were Caucasian. PIE scores ranged from 3 to 4.5 (Table 1), demonstrating differing and increasingly complex and internalized ways faculty understand their PI, and that not all nominated exemplars share a singular view of professionalism.
CONCLUSION(S): Physicians nominated as exemplars of professionalism embody a range of professional identities and professionalism world-views. Our study provides rich descriptions of multiple pathways to strengthening a physician's professionalidentities, of critical importance to faculty and physician development in a milieu of challenges to recruitment and retention of physicians. This approach can also inform educators' efforts to support PI development in learners and support the development of learning communities that foster a growth mindset. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Recognize importance of strong role models for MPI. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Describe the varying levels of MPI in a cohort of exemplar physicians

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

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: A mature medical professional identity (PI) is a fundamental outcome of medical education (Irby and Hamstra, 2016) and medical schools across the country are developing approaches to support professional identity formation (PIF) in students. Reflective capacity, not just in the moment but as a broad skill, is key to core professional competency and may underlie PIF (Wald, 2015). Yet the relationship between reflective capacity and PIF is not well understood. Do these two concepts assess the same developmental capacity? Is reflective capacity a prerequisite for professional identity development? This pilot study is an initial attempt to explore this issue and to examine the relationship between written reflective capacity and professional identity development.
METHOD(S): As part of a professionalism curriculum medical students complete the Professional Identity Essay (PIE) at three time points: upon entrance to the school, after basic science courses, and after clinical rotations. The PIE (Bebeau and Lewis 2004), based on Kegan's developmental model (1982), requires responses to 9 prompts which elicit conceptions of the professional role. It is scored on a 5-point scale reflecting Kegan's 5 stages, with transitional stages captured by half-points. For this study, we randomly selected 20 PIE protocols from the 100 completed by the Class of 2020 after their basic science curriculum. These were scored by three raters (VM, AK, LA). Interrater reliability was established by reaching 100% agreement within one half stage on the PIE. The same raters scored the PIE protocols with the Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT), following the scoring criteria (Wald 2010, Wald 2012). For both the PIE and REFLECT we averaged the three raters into a single score. A Pearson two-tailed correlation was then computed between the two scales.
RESULT(S): Completed scores on both measures were available for 19 of the 20 PIES. The range of PIE scores was 2.5-4, as would be expected of students at this point in their careers (Kalet 2018). REFLECT scores ranged 2-4. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between the PIE and REFLECT (r=.628, p=.004), with REFLECT scores explaining 39% of the variance of PIE scores.
CONCLUSION(S): The correlation between PIE scores and REFLECT ratings suggests that the PIE captures and reflects some elements of learners' reflective capacity. However there remains a large component of the PIE score not explained by reflective capacity, which suggests that the PIE, as a standalone measure of PIF, demonstrates qualities beyond reflective capacity. Further investigation is warranted in order to tease out the interplay between these two concepts. Understanding the relationship between PIF and reflective capacity can inform educators in promoting a more nuanced and sophisticated PI development in students

BACKGROUND: There's been a recent shift toward addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) during the clinical encounter through discussion and documentation. SDoH documentation in the problem list and through billing-related z-code use is necessary for accurate, individual patient and population level tracking andmay improve quality of care.We sought to better understand if/how providers document their patient's SDoH when elicited during a clinical visit.
METHOD(S): Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) were sent to two safety-net clinics to assess how medicine residents care for a new patient presenting with one of six unique chief complaints, and accompanying underlying financial, housing, and social concerns. USPs assessed resident practices after the encounter through a behaviorally anchored checklist and systematic chart review. USPs volunteered financial concerns while housing insecurity and social isolation needed to be elicited by the provider. Checklist items assessed if the USP was able to fully disclose their SDoH to the provider. Provider documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) in one of three spaces: the history of present illness (HPI), the problem list, or through use of a social determinant-specific Zcode was examined when a USP was able to share their concerns.
RESULT(S): 384 USP visits were sent to medical residents from 2017 to 2019. USPs were able to share their financial concerns during 84% of the encounters, but were less likely to be able to share their housing or social concerns with providers (35% and 28%, respectively). Documentation in the HPI and treatment list remained low across cases (<15%) and only one Z-code was used across all visits. On an individual case level, providers addressed housing insecurity most frequently in the asthma case (discussion 65%; documentation: HPI 39%, Plan 16%) and social isolation in the fatigue case (discussion 57%; documentation: HPI 49%, Plan 2%). Providers were least likely to discuss and document SDoH for patients presenting with acute pain.
CONCLUSION(S): In clinical scenarios where SDoH concerns were elicited, residents documented SDoH in less than half of visits. Omission of SDoH not only effects clinical care but also panel management and SDoH population-level estimations. New education strategies are needed to address resident's ability to elicit and accurately document SDoH

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDoH) play a significant role in health outcomes, but little is known about care teams' attitudes about addressing SDoH. Our safety-net clinic has begun to implement SDoH screening and referral systems, but efforts to increase clinical responses to SDoH necessitates an understanding of how providers and clinical teams see their roles in responding to particular SDoH concerns.
METHOD(S): An annual survey was administered (anonymously) to clinical care teams in an urban safety-net clinic from 2017-2019, asking about ten SDoH conditions (mental health, health insurance, food, housing, transportation, finances, employment, child care, education and legal Aid). For each, respondents rated with a 4-point Likert-scale whether they agreed that health systems should address it (not at all, a little, somewhat, a great deal). They also indicated their agreement (using strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree) with two statements 1) resources are available for SDoH and 2) I can make appropriate referrals.
RESULT(S): 232 surveys were collected (103 residents, 125 faculty and staff (F/S), 5 unknown) over three years. Of note, mental health (84%) and health insurance (79%) were seen as very important for health systems to address, with other SDoH items seen as very important by fewer respondents. They reported little confidence that the health system had adequate resources (51%) and were unsure how to connect patients with services (39%). When these results were broken out by year, we found the following: In 2017 (n=77), approximately 35% of respondents thought the issues of employment, childcare, legal aid, and adult education should be addressed "a little," but in 2018 (n=81) and 2019 (n=74) respondents found the health system should be more responsible, with over 35% of respondents stating that these four issues should be addressed "somewhat" by health systems. In addition, half of respondents in 2019 felt that financial problems should be addressed "a great deal," up from 31% in 2017. Across all years, food, housing, mental health, and health insurance were seen as SDoH that should be addressed "a great deal". It is of note that respondents across all years reported limited understanding of referral methods and options available to their patients.
CONCLUSION(S): Many of the SDoH conditions were seen by respondents as outside the purview of health systems. However, over the three years, more members increased the number of SDoH conditions that should be addressed a "great deal." Responses also indicated that many of the team members do not feel prepared to deal with "unmet social needs". Additional examination of clinic SDoH coding, referral rates, resources, and team member perspectives will deepen our understanding of how we can cultivate a culture that enables team members to respond to SDoH in a way that is sensitive to their needs and patient needs

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