Faculty Bibliography

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: 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: Internalizing a strong medical professional identity (PI) is a critical part of medical education. Recent studies of medical students have documented that students' PI, measured by the Professional Identity Essay (PIE), a reflective writing assessment of PI based on Kegan's theory of adult development and Bebeau's developmental model of PI, vary and are impacted by education. Little is known about the PI of exemplary professional physicians. We sought to: 1) describe the PI of physicians who exemplify the highest principles of the medical profession, and 2) evaluate NYU faculty identified as professional exemplars by peers to provide data and demonstrate clear role models for learners METHODS: We elicited nominations for professional exemplar physicians from NYU faculty, chief residents, and 4th-year students, using the definition of professionalism developed by Colby and Damon (1992). Participants were recruited after receiving at least 3 nominations; select participants who received 1 or 2 nominations were also recruited to diversify the participants in terms of specialty, years of practice, gender and race.We also used snowball techniques to get nominations fromstudy participants. After consenting, faculty received the 11-question PIE. We analyzed demographic data of nominated faculty and completed a content analysis of the PIE.
RESULT(S): 206 individual faculty were nominated at least one time by 70 community members. 32 individuals were recruited to the study; to date 22 have completed the PIE. The 206 nominees/22 participants represent: 34/12 specialties, average years in practice 17.6/23.8, range of years in practice 62 for nominees/44 for participants. We identified 3 primary themes through the content analysis: (1) Response to Expectations, "Everything. The profession demands everything.As much as this profession takes fromme, it is dwarfed by what I have received in return." (2) Response to Failure: "I fail to live up to expectations every day. Some days thismotivatesme, other days I disappoint myself." (3) Learning from Others: "I view teaching as integral to medical professionalism." There was a range of developmental levels in the responses with some focusing more on external rather than internal motivations: "I can say that the [malpractice] process for me was very threatening, emotionally consuming and had the potential to alter professional behavior in the wrong way."
CONCLUSION(S): Nominated faculty represented a diverse group with respect to PI. Many participants demonstrated great professionalism and a sense of internal PI in responses to the PIE questions, while others focused onmore externalmotivations to drive their professional behaviors. Further analysis is needed to define the qualities of a true exemplary professional. The range of responses of the exemplars can both serve as role models for learners and provide multiple pathways for learners and faculty to strengthen their own professional identities

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

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