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: 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: 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

Corrigendum to: Jeffrey A. Wilhite*, Khemraj Hardowar, Harriet Fisher, Barbara Porter, Andrew B. Wallach, Lisa Altshuler, Kathleen Hanley, Sondra R. Zabar and Colleen C. Gillespie. Clinical problem solving and social determinants of health: a descriptive study using unannounced standardized patients to directly observe how resident physicians respond to social determinants of health. Diagnosis 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3, pages 313-324. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10&d=DwIBAg&c=j5oPpO0eBH1iio48DtsedeElZfc04rx3ExJHeIIZuCs&r=CY_mkeBghQnUPnp2mckgsNSbUXISJaiBQUhM-Uz9W58&m=TyoCBAKzCpBZ4-uIICybN67eGKr9ePdBC-WexDhSuSM&s=-H9hUl6CWWk07_DiPQFbSmQyI2qWxw4tQLZIEBIpIVY&e= . 1515/dx-2020-0002. Unfortunately, a typographic error in the results portion of the abstract was missed during final stages of proofing and editing. The count of full elicitors should read as 38/68 rather than 28/68, and the % of negative elicitors is 23%. The corrected results read as follows: Residents fell into three groups when it came to clinical problem-solving around a housing trigger for asthma: those who failed to ask about housing and therefore did not uncover mold as a potential trigger (neglectors - 21%; 14/68); those who asked about housing in negative ways that prevented disclosure and response (negative elicitors - 23%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors - 56%; 38/68).
Copyright

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Despite a decline, smoking rates have remained high, especially in communities with lower income, education, and limited insurance options. Evidence shows that physician-initiated counseling on smoking cessation is effective and saves lives, and that specific skills are needed to appropriately lead this type of patient-physician communication. Residency is a critical moment for future physicians and may be the optimal time to learn, practice, and refine this skillset. Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) have been found to be effective, incognito evaluators of resident practices. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This study introduced rigorously trained actors (USPs) into two urban, safety-net clinics to assess resident ability to engage, activate, and counsel a pre-contemplative smoker. A complementary chart review assessed appropriate documentation in the patient's electronic health record (EHR) and its relationship to counseling style and prescribing practices. Results/UNASSIGNED:Resident scores (% well done) on patient education and engagement were low (33% and 23%, respectively). Residents who coupled cessation advice with an open discussion style activated their patients more than those who solely advised cessation across all comparable measures. On EHR documentation, residents who accurately documented smoking history were more likely to directly advise their patient to quit smoking when compared to residents who did not document (t(97) = 2.828, p = .006, Cohen's D = 0.56). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Results highlight the need to reinforce training in patient-centered approaches including motivational interviewing, counseling, and shared decision-making. Future research should focus on the effects of smokers in pre-contemplation on physician counseling style and examine the relationship between medical training and provider communication to guide interventions.

Background: Diagnostic tests account directly for 5% of healthcare costs, but influence decisions constituting 70% of health spending. Only 5% of ordered labs are actually " high value," depending on clinical circumstances. Low-value tests, defined as not appropriate for a given clinical scenario, are ordered in one in five clinic visits. Up to $ 750 billion is spent on these low-value tests, contributing to the estimated one-quarter to one-third of healthcare spending is on wasteful services. We sought to quantify test-specific low-value ordering behaviors in urban outpatient clinics across three standardized patient cases.
Method(s): Unannounced standardized patients (USPs-highly trained actors portraying patients with standardized case presentations) were introduced into medicine residents' primary care clinics in a large urban, safety net hospital over the past five years. The USPs simulated three common outpatient clinical scenarios: a " Well" visit, a visit with a chief complaint of " Fatigue," and a visit with a diagnosis of " Asthma." Diagnostic orders were extracted via retrospective chart review for these standardized visits. For each scenario, appropriateness of diagnostic testing was determined by reference to United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and relevant specialty society clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). " Wasteful" (over-ordered) tests were defined as those not explicitly indicated for the given scenario. Costs were derived from GoodRx.com according to local ZIP codes.
Result(s): The most commonly wasteful tests for the Asthma case were CBC (8% of 170 visits) and Chem-7 (6%), though the relative risk of over-ordering TSH was 3.8x that of other scenarios. The most commonly over-ordered tests for the Fatigue case were LFTs (14% of 148 visits) and HBV (5%), with LFTs ordered up to 15-fold more frequently than in other scenarios. The most commonly over-ordered tests for the Well case were BMP (35% of 124 visits), CBC (15%), LFTs (15%), and HBV (11%) ordered at rates up to 6.3x, 2.0x, 14.2x, and 7.4x higher than other scenarios. Finally, the average per patient excess costs were $ 8.27 (+/-$ 1.76), $ 6.79 (+/-$ 4.5), and $ 23.5 (+/-$ 9.34) for Asthma, Fatigue, and Well cases respectively.
Conclusion(s): Inappropriateness in test ordering patterns were observed through USP simulated cases. Certain tests (CBC, BMP, LFTs, and HBV) were more likely used wastefully across cases. Between cases, specific tests were ordered in an inappropriate manner (such as TSH for Asthma, LFTs for Fatigue, and BMP for Well visits). The per patient direct cost of low value testing rose above $ 20 per visit for the Well visit, though the Fatigue case exhibited the most variation. Notably, this excludes downstream (indirect) costs inestimatable from standardized encounters alone. Knowledge of wasteful utilization patterns associated with specific clinical scenarios can guide interventions targeting appropriate use of testing