Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The importance of addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, but less is known about how physicians specifically elicit, respond to, and document these determinants. We sought to describe resident practices when caring for a patient whose SDoH is integral to accurate diagnosis and treatment using Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs).
METHOD(S): USPs were used (n=68) to assess how medicine residents responded to the consistent portrayal of a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her living situation (moldy, dilapidated housing) might be contributing to her symptoms. USPs, or "secret shoppers", were sent to two of New York's safety-net hospitals. Resident practices were assessed by the USP during a post-visit behaviorally-anchored checklist (7 items) and through a systematic chart review (3 items). Checklist items included whether or not a provider explored and fully elicited the USPs concerns, how they responded once shared, and what the provider actually did in response. Chart review items included whether or not a provider documented their patient's housing concerns in the history of present illness (HPI), problem list, or through use of a billingrelated Z-code.
RESULT(S): 68/79 consented residents participated: 11 PGY1 (16%), 31 PGY2 (46%), and 26 PGY3 (38%). 65% (44/68) of residents elicited the patient's housing SDoH and of those, 75% (33/44) responded by acknowledging/exploring and providing notes/practical support. 30% (10/33) connected the patient to informative resources or direct referral. Less than half (14/33; 42%) of those who acknowledge/explored documented appropriately in the EMR. No residents documented housing in the problem list or with a housing-related ICD10 Z-code. Of the 14 high performers, 6 successfully elicited, acknowledged, and documented housing concerns for one of our other five SDoH cases. More than half (55%) of the residents who elicited housing information connected the mold to the asthma exacerbation as a possible trigger, either during clinical interaction or in documentation. All but one (93%) of those who el icited, acknowledged, and documented made this connection.
CONCLUSION(S): Using USPs to directly observe resident practice behaviors in gathering information about, documenting and taking action on a consistently portrayed SDoH case closely linked to clinical symptoms is the first piece of the puzzle needed to better understand education and training that prepares physicians to address SDoH. Our study identifies practice gaps at all stages - adequately collecting information, understanding the clinical/ treatment consequences of, effectively responding to needs, and in documentation of SDoH. Future research should explore the influence of the clinical microsystem (e.g., SDoH screening tools, available resources and referrals, and workflows) on physician SDoH-related practices

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.

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