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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM OR QUESTION (ONE SENTENCE): In order to describe quality improvement (QI) methods for health systems, we report on 10-years of using Unannounced Standardized Patient (USP) visits as the core of a program of education, training, and improvement in a system serving vulnerable patients in partnership with an academic medical center. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1: Consider methods for supporting learning healthcare systems LEARNING OBJECTIVES 2: Identify performance data to improve care DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (E.G. INPATIENT VS. OUTPATIENT, PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS): The IOM defines a Learning Healthcare System (LHCS) as one in which science, informatics, incentives and culture are aligned for continuous improvement and innovation and where best practices are seamlessly embedded in the delivery process and new knowledge is captured as an integral by-product of the delivery experience. As essential as electronic health records are to LHCS, such data fail to capture all actionable information needed to sustain learning within complex systems. USPs are trained actors who present to clinics, incognito, to portray standardized chief complaints, histories, and characteristics. We designed and delivered USP visits to two urban, safety net clinics, focusing on assessing physician, team, and clinical micro system functioning. MEASURES OF SUCCESS (DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND/OR QUANTITATIVEMETRICSWHICHWILL BE USEDTOEVALUATE PROGRAM/INTERVENTION): Behaviorally anchored assessments are used to assess core clinical skills (e.g., communication, information gathering, patient education, adherence to guidelines, patient centeredness, and patient activation). Team functioning assessments include professionalism and coordination. Micro system assessment focuses on safety issues like identity confirmation, hand washing, and navigation. Data from these visits has been provided to the residency, primary care teams, and to leadership and have been used to drive education, team training, and QI. FINDINGS TO DATE (IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO STATE FINDINGS WILL BE DISCUSSED): 1111 visits have been sent to internal medicine and primary care residents and their teams/clinics. At the resident level, needs for additional education and training in depression management, opioid prescribing, smoking cessation, and patient activation were identified and informed education. Chart reviews found substantial variation in ordering of labs and tests. At the team level, USPs uncovered needs for staff training, enhanced communication, and better processes for eliciting and documenting Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). Audit/feedback reports on provider responses to embedded SDoH combined with targeted education/resources, were associated with increased rates of eliciting and effectively responding to SDoH. In the early COVID wave, USPs tested clinic response to a potentially infectious patient. Currently, USPs are being deployed to understand variability in patients' experience of telemedicine given the rapid transformation to this modality. Finally, generalizable questions about underlying principles of medical education and quality improvement are being asked & answered using USP data to foster deeper understanding of levers for change. KEY LESSONS FOR DISSEMINATION (WHAT CAN OTHERS TAKE AWAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TO THEIR PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY): A comprehensive USP program can provide unique insights for driving QI and innovation and help sustain a LHCS

LEARNINGOBJECTIVES 1: Interpersonal /Communication Skill: 1) Identify communication skills needed to recruit older adults LEARNING OBJECTIVES 2: 2) Assess feasibility of GOSCEs to enhance recruitment skills in RAs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 18 (5 male, 13 female) Research Assistants (RAs) at an urban hospital who recruit older adults for clinical trials. DESCRIPTION: Increasing older adults' participation in clinical trials is urgently needed. We developed a remote, three station simulation (Group Objective Structured Clinical Exam - GOSCE) to teach RAs communication skills. This 2-hour course included a discussion of challenges in recruiting older adults; skills practice with Standardized Participants (SPs); and a debrief to review experiences, highlight best practices. After discussion, RAs rotated (3 per group) through the stations, each with SP and faculty observer who provided immediate feedback. Thus, learners had opportunities for active and observational learning.Scenarios were: 1) an older white woman with hearing impairment; 2) an older white woman and family member together; and 3) an older Black man mistrustful due to history of racism in medical research. SPs completed behaviorally anchored checklists (11 communication skills across all cases, and 5-7 case-specific questions). Learners completed a 36- item survey of self-assessed change in skill after the workshop; insights on recruitment practice; and educational value. EVALUATION: The communication checklist across all cases included: relationship development (5 items, mean of 58% well done (range: 50-75%), patient education (3 items, 44% (42-58%)), patient satisfaction (2 items, 54% (50-58%)), and information gathering (1 item, 92%). Seventeen RAs completed the survey, 100% felt the workshop provided valuable feedback and taught relevant material, 88% would participate again and 52%reported that the workshop improved their recruitment skills. All RAs reported encountering situations similar to hearing impairment and family member cases, and the majority rated the cases as high in educational value. Just 45% reported experiencing a case similar to the Black male case, and 100% rate it as high in educational value. Key points identified by RAs included the value of building a trusting relationship with potential subjects, recognizing possible barriers to communication early on and addressing these directly in a supportive and respectful style. DISCUSSION / REFLECTION / LESSONS LEARNED: Remote GOSCEs are a feasible mechanism for training RAs in subject recruitment focused on the unique needs of older adults. Responses to the RA survey suggest that GOSCEs are feasible for training RAs in simulated clinical scenarios with which participants are familiar and unfamiliar. SP assessment of RAs identified areas for further reinforcement to improve recruitment skills. This innovation is a feasible, high yield strategy for training research staff. It is highly adaptable to the specific recruitment needs and skills of a clinical trials and will add to the literature on educating RAs

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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