Faculty Bibliography

Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provide a controlled, simulated setting for competency assessments, while unannounced simulated patients (USPs) measure competency in situ or real-world settings. This exploratory study describes differences in primary care residents' skills when caring for the same simulated patient case in OSCEs versus in a USP encounter. Data reported describe a group of residents (n=20) who were assessed following interaction with the same simulated patient case in two distinct settings: an OSCE and a USP visit at our safety-net clinic from 2009 to 2010. In both scenarios, the simulated patient presented as an asthmatic woman with limited understanding of illness management. Residents were rated through a behaviourally anchored checklist on visit completion. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain and compared using paired sample t-tests. Residents performed significantly better with USPs on 7 of 10 items and in two of three aggregate assessment domains (p<0.05). OSCE structure may impede assessment of activation and treatment planning skills, which are better assessed in real-world settings. This exploration of outcomes from our two assessments using the same clinical case lays a foundation for future research on variation in situated performance. Using both assessments during residency will provide a more thorough understanding of learner competency.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overwhelmed hospitals at various stages of the pandemic, leading to intense focus on availability of inpatient resources and less attention to primary care contributions. There is clear evidence that medical comorbidities, social determinants of health, and individual behaviors such as mask-wearing affect COVID-19 outcomes. By managing medical comorbidities and modifying social behaviors, it is plausible that primary care physicians (PCPs) improve COVID-19 outcomes. Socioeconomic status (SES) and environment likely affect the number of PCPs and their effectiveness in a community. Notwithstanding these factors, we hypothesize that PCPs contribute to healthier communities and that this will correlate with decreased COVID-19 cases and mortality.
METHOD(S): We used three surrogate measures of PCP effectiveness: PCP rate (#PCPs/population), flu vaccination rate, and number of preventable hospital stays. We merged county-level data from USA Facts, the New York Times masking survey, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Data, and the Health Resources & Services Administration. We ran multiple linear regression models to measure the contributed variance in COVID-19 cases or deaths of the measures of PCP effectiveness after adjusting for age, race, economic, and environmental factors. A second model also measured the effect of PCP rates on mask adherence adjusted for the same confounders. Data were merged and analyzed using SPSS v.25.
RESULT(S): Data were available from 2957 of 3143 county equivalents. There were an average of 55 PCPs per 100,000 population. By December 27, 2020 there were 18,750,038 COVID-19 cases and 325,507 deaths nationally. In multiple linear regression models, PCP rate (beta=-0.07), flu vaccination rate (beta=-0.067), and preventable hospital stays (beta=0.136) were all significant (p<=0.001) contributors to the variance seen in COVID-19 cases after adjusting for confounding variables. Similarly, PCP rate (beta=-0.056, p=0.003), flu vaccination rate (beta=-0.006, p=0.001), and preventable hospital stays (beta=0.166, p<0.001) were significant contributors to the variance seen in COVID-19 deaths. PCP rate was also found to be a significant contributor to variance in mask adherence (beta=0.078, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION(S): All measures of PCP effectiveness were significantly correlated with lower COVID-19 cases and deaths and higher self-reported mask adherence even after accounting for SES and environmental factors. The pandemic has exposed an American healthcare system that is detrimentally more reactive than preventative. Our study demonstrates the modest-but significant- success of prevention efforts by PCPs. We hope it will serve to increase resource allocation and attention toward the primary care sector of the healthcare workforce. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Identify how increasing resource allocation to primary care may improve systems-based practice. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Recognize the role that primary care physicians may play in improving COVID-19 outcomes

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

PURPOSE:To describe the effect of transgender health-related objective structured clinical examination (THOSCE) case exposure on learner activation regarding gender-affirming care. METHOD:A modified grounded theory approach was applied to identify the educational value of THOSCE cases. Focus groups with current and former primary care internal medicine residents who participated in THOSCE cases were conducted in 2018-2019. Transcripts were analyzed and coded until saturation to identify themes. RESULTS:Eighteen (72%) eligible learners participated in the focus groups. Themes were identified relating to gender-affirming care, and modified grounded theory analysis was used as a framework to organize the themes into 4 stages of learner activation: (1) believing the learner role is important, (2) having the confidence and knowledge necessary to take action, (3) taking action to maintain and improve one's skills, and (4) staying the course even under stress. CONCLUSIONS:Residents were grateful for the opportunity to practice the skills involved in transgender health in a simulation. Many felt unprepared and were concerned about how they were perceived by the standardized patient and faculty. Residents identified feeling more comfortable with gender-affirming language in the inpatient setting, which may provide an opportunity for learning in the future. Residents identified the psychosocial skills of gender-affirming care as more directly relevant while biomedical aspects of gender-affirming care seemed less accessible to residents, given the lack of outpatient experience. The authors propose a staged approach to teaching the skills of gender-affirming care using simulation to address learners of all levels.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To present the results of a survey of the Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS) investigators regarding barriers to the enrollment of study participants and approaches to overcome them. METHODS:ZEDS is a multicenter randomized clinical trial supported by the National Eye Institute to determine whether prolonged suppressive valacyclovir reduces the complications of herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO), relative to placebo. Enrollment of study participants is currently far below expectations. An institutional review board-approved anonymous internet survey was conducted of ZEDS investigators to study their experiences and opinions regarding barriers to enrollment and various approaches to overcome them. RESULTS:The overall survey response rate was 54% (79/145). Only 29% (23/79) agreed that it is easy to enroll study participants. Regarding patient barriers, 69% (55/79) agreed that HZO patients want to be treated with antiviral medication and 69% (54/78) agreed that HZO patients on antivirals do not want to be randomized. Regarding personal barriers facing investigators, 91% (72/79) agreed that antivirals are effective and 100% that the research questions ZEDS is designed to answer are very important. Fewer than 30% of respondents believed that steps taken to increase enrollment have been very helpful. Over half (54%, 42/78) believed that advertising on social media would be moderately or very effective. CONCLUSIONS:Belief among ZEDS investigators that antivirals are effective, and the preference of patients to be treated with antivirals rather than be randomized in ZEDS, are major barriers to enrollment. New approaches to overcoming barriers are necessary to develop an evidence-based standard of care for treatment of HZO.

Objectives While the need to address patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, less is known about physicians' actual clinical problem-solving when it comes to SDoH. Do physicians include SDoH in their assessment strategy? Are SDoH incorporated into their diagnostic thinking and if so, do they document as part of their clinical reasoning? And do physicians directly address SDoH in their "solution" (treatment plan)? Methods We used Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) to assess internal medicine residents' clinical problem solving in response to a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her moldy apartment is contributing to symptoms - a case designed to represent a clear and direct link between a social determinant and patient health. Residents' clinical practices were assessed through a post-visit checklist and systematic chart review. Patterns of clinical problem solving were identified and then explored, in depth, through review of USP comments and history of present illness (HPI) and treatment plan documentation. Results 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 - 24%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors - 56%; 28/68). Of the full elicitors 53% took no further action, 26% only documented the mold; and 21% provided resources/referral. In-depth review of USP comments/explanations and residents' notes (HPI, treatment plan) revealed possible influences on clinical problem solving. Failure to ask about housing was associated with both contextual factors (rushed visit) and interpersonal skills (not fully engaging with patient) and with possible differences in attention ("known" vs. unknown/new triggers, usual symptoms vs. changes, not attending to relocation, etc.,). Use of close-ended questions often made it difficult for the patient to share mold concerns. Negative responses to sharing of housing information led to missing mold entirely or to the patient not realizing that the physician agreed with her concerns about mold. Residents who fully elicited the mold situation but did not take action seemed to either lack knowledge or feel that action on SDoH was outside their realm of responsibility. Those that took direct action to help the patient address mold appeared to be motivated by an enhanced sense of urgency. Conclusions Findings provide unique insight into residents' problem solving processes including external influences (e.g., time, distractions), the role of core communication and interpersonal skills (eliciting information, creating opportunities for patients to voice concerns, sharing clinical thinking with patients), how traditional cognitive biases operate in practice (premature closure, tunneling, and ascertainment bias), and the ways in which beliefs about expectancies and scope of practice may color clinical problem-solving strategies for addressing 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: 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: 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