Faculty Bibliography

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.

Needs and Objectives: There is an increasing need for resident education on substance use disorders (SUDs). The purpose of our curriculum was to improve residents' knowledge, skills, and attitudes on treating patients with SUDs. Setting and Participants: First and second year residents from NYU's Primary Care, Internal Medicine program participated in the Block of Addiction Medicine (BAM!) curriculum. Clinical settings included buprenorphine/methadone clinics and outpatient treatment programs in a large, urban safety net hospital system. Description: BAMis an intensive two week curriculum focused on SUDs. To improve residents' knowledge, we included didactic sessions on substances, including alcohol, opiates, and tobacco. Sessions covered epidemiology, biology, and treatment, including pharmacologic options, with all residents receiving buprenorphine prescribing waiver training. BAMwas delivered by an interdisciplinary faculty that included addiction medicine specialists, department of health officials, and general practitioners, nurses, and social workers who have worked extensively with patients with SUDs. Workshops built skills including screening, brief interventions, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) and motivational interviewing. Residents attended buprenorphine/methadone clinics, outpatient treatment programs, and 12-step (AA/NA) meetings. Residents shared lunch in a non-clinical setting with patients in recovery to understand their perspectives on living with addiction. Evaluation: Residents' attitudes and self-perceived efficacy in treating SUDs were surveyed. Pre and post data was obtained on 15 of 16 participants. Using the medical condition regard scale (MCRS), an 11 item questionnaire on biases/emotions/expectations for treating patients with SUD, we found a statistically significant improvement in the composite score, from 44.46 to 47.0 (p=0.026). Of 15 residents, 11 reported improved ability to effectively screen for SUD, 10 reported improved comfort in screening patients for SUD, 12 reported improved knowledge in using medically assisted treatment (MAT), and 14 reported improved ability to effectively treat patients with MAT (all p<.001 in Wilcoxon signed rank test). Qualitative feedback showed residents felt this curriculum was an essential part of their education; one participant commented: "this is a course that should be offered to every medical care provider." Discussion/Reflection/Lessons Learned: BAMincluded a varied curriculum delivered by inter-professional faculty. Residents reported improved comfort in treating patients with SUDs and demonstrated a significant improvement on the MCRS in their already positive attitudes towards treating this patient population. Qualitative feedback indicated that residents enjoyed BAMand found it important to their training. Given the increasing need for providers who are able to effectively treat SUDs, courses such as BAMare an effective and essential part of residency. Further studies are needed to assess if the changes in residents' attitudes persist and whether we influenced practice

Background: There is an increased awareness among healthcare professionals to discuss social determinant of health (SDOH) information with patients. However, the awareness does not necessarily translate into effective response to the situation. In order to better understand the nuances in such conversations between patients and providers, we reviewed qualitative responses from Unannounced Standardized Patient (USP) portraying patients with SDOH concerns who were seen as part of a study to investigate healthcare teams' management of SDOH information.
Method(s): USPs, representing six different clinical cases, were seen by residents at an urban safety-net hospital. Each case had SDOH issues (financial and housing insecurity, social isolation), and USPs were trained to provide such information in a systematic fashion in response to provider questioning. After the encounter, USPs completed a behaviorally-anchored, standardized checklist, and also entered their impressions of the encounter in free text. The focus of this study was to evaluate these comments using a qualitative approach, focusing only on those that addressed SDOH. 258 visits occurred from 2017-present, and 209 relevant comments were analyzed.
Result(s): Three general themes emerged: residents' openness to discussion of SDOH, their understanding of how these issues related to presenting concerns, and how they responded to those concerns. Some providers did not explore SDOH prompts, e.g. " I don't think she cut me off, but she quickly moved on to her next question without further delving deeper", while others were more responsive and supportive e.g., the provider " is very open to hearing my situation, I was able to fully explain my situation clearly." Such provider behavior impacted trust and connection, e.g., " Doctor X had good communication skills, but I felt like he didn't really hear my full story" There were variations in how well providers related SDOH to medical symptoms, e.g. " he completely ignored my concerns about mold at home" [asthma case] vs. " His questions centered around possible anxiety this (housing issue) might be causing me." After acknowledgement, fewer providers provided specific information or referrals to address the problem. This lack of follow-up seemed to leave USPs feeling uncomfortable. Both empathic comments and suggestions for actions influenced their sense of activation to manage their health post-visit.
Conclusion(s): Data from the USP visits indicate that there is a range of attention to and follow up on patient presentation of SDOH needs by trainees in clinical settings. Issues of both general communication skills, awareness of connection between SDOH and health, and awareness of local resources impacted provider behavior, which then had an effect on relationship with patients. The complex issues involved in addressing SDOH highlights the diverse training needs for learners

Background: For quality care, physicians must be skilled in diagnosing and treating chronic pain. Some studies have shown gender differences in how providers manage pain. And more broadly, female providers provide more patient-centered communication which in turn has been linked to patient activation and satisfaction with care. We explore, using Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs), whether resident physician gender is associated with the core underlying skills needed to effectively diagnose and management chronic pain: communication, patient centeredness, and patient activation.
Method(s): We designed two USP cases and sent these undercover patients into primary care clinics at two urban, safety-net clinics. The USP cases were similar: a 30-35 y.o. male, presented as a new patient to the clinic with either shoulder pain induced by heavy lifting or knee pain due to a recreational sports injury. USPs completed a post-visit checklist that assessed patient satisfaction (4 items), patient activation (3 items), and communication skills (13 items) using a behaviorally-anchored scale (not done or partly done vs. well done). Summary scores were calculated for each of the three domains. Residents provided consent for their educational data to be used for research as part of an IRB-approved medical education registry.
Result(s): A total of 135 USP visits (80 female providers, 55 male) occurred between 2012 and 2018. Female providers saw 41 shoulder pain and 39 knee pain cases while male providers saw 21 shoulder and 34 knee cases. ANOVA was used to assess differences in summary scores by provider gender (male vs female) and by case portrayed (knee vs shoulder). Skills did not differ significantly by whether knee or shoulder pain case. Gender effects were not seen for patient centeredness or for patient activation; however female providers performed significantly better at relationship development (83% vs males 72% shoulder pain; 70% vs 66% knee pain case; p<.001) and information gathering (86% vs. males 72% shoulder pain; 79% vs66% in knee case; p<.016). Male providers, however, performed slightly better in patient education and counseling (65% vs 63% for shoulder and 38% vs 33% for knee cases; p<.001).
Conclusion(s): Developing a relationship and gathering information are critical to pain management and female residents performed better than male residents in these areas. Male providers performed slightly better than women in patient education and provider gender was not associated with any differences in patient centeredness or activation. In the future, we plan to link these underlying skills to pain management decisions, documentation and ultimately to patient outcomes. We suspect that patient activation may best be measured at follow-up, something not possible with our current USP methodology. Gender differences could be viewed as striking in the context of our relatively homogeneous sample (medicine residency program) and shared clinical environment/healthcare system

Background: Considerable resources are put into training physicians to be effective providers after residency. Practicing physicians are generally assumed to be more effective and more efficient than resident physicians who are still undergoing training. We capitalize on a unique opportunity to test that hypothesis using the controlled methodology of Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs), Standardized Patients sent into clinical environments to systematically assess provider skills in the context of a standardized clinical scenario. Due to last minute scheduling changes, a small sample of attending physicians ended up seeing USPs we had intended to send to residents. In this study, we report on comparisons between how these attending physicians performed in terms of their patient centeredness, patient activation, assessment, and communication skills in comparison to residents.
Method(s): 6 USP visits were delivered to primary care clinics in an urban safety net hospital from 2009 to 2015. Of those 700+ visits, visits were completed inadvertently with 16 attendings. We selected the 16 attendings with at least 4 years of post-graduate experience and then matched them with 2 resident visits based on hospital, time period, and USP visit type (n=32 residents). In all visits, USPs completed a behav-iorally anchored post-visit checklist that assessed patient centeredness (4 items), patient activation (2 items), visit-specific assessment (10 items), and communication skills including information gathering (4 items), relationship development (5 items) and patient education (3 items). Items were rated as not done or partially done vs. well done and summary scores were calculated as % well done. Mean scores for attendings and matched residents were compared using t-tests.
Result(s): Resident and attending scores on patient centeredness (68% vs 73%), patient activation (44% vs 38%), assessment (53% vs 51%), patient education (49% vs 52%), information gathering (71% vs 78%) and relationship development (70% vs 73%) did not significantly differ (p>.05). Nor did we see any substantial differences in variances or find any outliers.
Conclusion(s): In our matched sample of residents and attendings, there were no significant differences by training level for any of the assessed clinical skills. While we viewed the inadvertent scheduling of USP visits with attendings as an opportunity to investigate the impact of training, our study is limited by the small sample size and whether we were able to create good matches. Findings may reflect ceiling effects (our checklists are too hard) or expertise-reversal effects (experts can skip some elements of the interaction and still arrive at the correct diagnosis and treatment plan). Further research, if our mistakenly-assessed attending sample increases, could explore the influence of PGY level and of patient load as attendings carry substantially heavier patient panels and see more (and probably more complex) patients per day then residents

Needs and Objectives: Residents often fail to escalate care due to uncertainty resulting in delays of care and possible harm. Multiple studies have identified trainee self-reported barriers to escalation, but none have evaluated the impact of a multi-faceted curriculum aimed to reduce perceived escalation barriers. Our objective was to identify, address, and improve residents' perceived barriers to escalation. Setting and Participants: This study was conducted at an urban, academic medical center within the Internal Medicine residency program over one year. Description: A baseline Likert-scale survey categorized residents' perceived escalation issues. A four-lecture curriculum about common causes of patient deterioration and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) were created to address the found issues. In the OSCE PGY1 residents first entered the room with the option to escalate to a PGY2 or a PGY3 acting as the rapid response team (RRT) leader with an attending physician creating pushback/intimidation throughout. Debrief focused on both knowledge and collapsing hierarchies. A retrospective pre-post Likert-scale survey evaluated for change in resident attitudes after the interventions in three areas: Communication Skills, Awareness/proper knowledge base of the problem, and Self-assertiveness/handling intimidation from superiors. Evaluation: A total of 54/77 of IM residents completed the baseline survey. Only the PGY1,2 received intervention, and 34/54 completed the pre-post survey. Baseline survey Results Identified barriers included feeling intimidated when escalating (33% rated this as at least a fairly common problem), feeling pushback when escalating (31%), worrying others will view them negatively (10%), gaps in knowledge (12%)/awareness (32%), and misunderstanding severity of the problem (11%). Retrospective Pre-Post Results Paired T-tests were conducted on pre and post summary scores. All post-intervention summary scores rose compared to pre scores, and the Awareness scale approached significance (p=.08). The seven most targeted questions were examined using Wilcoxin Sign tests. Three questions showed statistically significant improvement: improved frequency of being told information needing escalation (p=0.004), less feelings of self-blame (p=0.035), less limitation of autonomy with mandatory RRTs (p=0.009). The other four questions including comfort with, worries about repercussions for, feeling intimidated about, and viewing self negatively if needing to escalate showed change in the positive direction without reaching statistical significance. Discussion/Reflection/Lessons Learned: This study demonstrates the implementation of a year-long curriculum and OSCE can lead to significant change in resident attitudes about perceived escalation barriers. It is likely this study was hindered by a small sample size due to the number of near-significant findings. Future studies are needed involving larger numbers of residents and looking at changes in RRT instances and outcomes to determine if clinical change accompanies the found perceptual change

Statement of Problem Or Question (One Sentence): Does actionable feedback on patient safety indicators and responses to disclosed social determinants of health (SDOH) impact clinical behavior? Objectives of Program/Intervention (No More Than Three Objectives): (1) Develop/disseminate quarterly audit-feedback reports on SDoH practice behavior, focusing on elicitation of patient information. (2) Enhance our understanding of factors related to disparities in safety/quality of care. (3) Increase rates of SDoH documentation and referral. Description of Program/Intervention, Including Organizational Context (E.G. Inpatient Vs. Outpatient, Practice or Community Characteristics): We sent Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) with SDoH-related needs to care teams in two urban, safety-net clinics. Data collected on practice behaviors were used for cycles of audit and feedback on the quality of electronic health record (EHR) documentation, team level information sharing, and appropriate service referral. Reports contained an evolving educational component (e.g. how to recognize, refer, and document SDoH). We disseminated reports to teams (doctors, nurses, physician's assistants, medical assistants, and staff) at routine meetings and via email. Measures of Success (Discuss Qualitative And/Or Quantitative Metrics Which Will Be Used To Evaluate Program/Intervention): Three audit feedback reports have been distributed to date. Survey data was collected at two time points, 2017 (n=77) and 2018 (n=81), to assess provider attitude changes and integration of feedback into clinical practice. Measures included change in team knowledge and attitudes towards SDoH, and response to/documentation of presented SDoH (measured via post-visit checklist and EMR). Findings To Date (It Is Not Sufficient To State Findings Will Be Discussed): Preliminary data shows no change or improvement in documentation of SDoH and limited variation between firm-level responses. (1) Only 7% of providers reported feeling strongly confident in knowing how to make referrals for social needs in 2018; no improvement since 2017. (2) Despite regular report distribution, 58% of providers reported having received no formalized feedback on responding to SDoH. 24% reported maybe or not sure. (3) 86% of 2018 survey participants self-reported having referred a patient to appropriate services when a social need was identified. Our referral data says otherwise, referrals occur for less than 30% of visits with SDoH-related needs. Key Lessons For Dissemination (What Can Others Take Away For Implementation To Their Practice Or Community?): Results suggest disconnect between team data and individual reporting: most report they refer but data suggests few do. Deeper integration of reports into team processes, attachment of feedback to curricula, and increased frequency of regular feedback may be needed for accountability. These preliminary Results help refine audit feedback methodology but research is needed to understand motivation and systems barriers to referral and documentation. Future research will look at provider attitudes toward referral processes

Background: Inter-provider variability is a major source of low-value care. The dissemination of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has targeted this variability, yet 44% of physicians are non-adherent to CPG. This may be due to factors including exceptionalism and incentive misalignment that present a conflict between comprehensiveness and prudence in work-up. A subset of super-utilizers are notable outliers: fewer than 0.5% of physicians account for 10% of healthcare costs. Super-utilizers order labs, request consults, order imaging, and prescribe medications at rates 30%, 140%, 14%, and 25% higher than the general population. We sought to quantify provider-specific low-value test ordering behaviors across three cases.
Method(s): Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) were trained for standardized simulation of three clinical scenarios: a "Well" visit, a chief complaint of "Fatigue," and a diagnosis of "Asthma." USPs were introduced into medicine residents' clinics in a large urban, safety-net hospital. Diagnostic orders were extracted via retrospective chart review. Scenario-specific appropriateness of diagnostic testing was determined by referencing United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and specialty society CPGs. "Excessive" tests were those not explicitly indicated for a given scenario in either USPSTF or society CPGs (versus "indicated" tests). "Discretionary" tests were those conditionally indicated, pending patient-specific factors (such as hemoglobin A1C, pending BMI).
Result(s): One or more excessive tests were ordered in 44%, 22%, and 17% of Well (n=124), Fatigue (n=148), and Asthma (n=148) encounters respectively. Percent of orders that were excessive were 18%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. On average, 1.3 (+/-1.7) excessive orders were made. Within each case, rates of excessive ordering were positively correlated with rates of indicated and discretionary ordering, and negatively correlated with rates of omitting indicated tests. For example, in Fatigue, the correlation between excessive and indicated orders was 0.38, between excessive and discretionary orders rates was 0.59, and between excessive and omitted-indicated tests was-0.25 (all p< 0.05). A similar, statistically-significant pattern was found for the other two cases. 10 (21%) and 4 (8%) of 48 residents completing all scenarios demonstrated excessive ordering at rates atleast 1 and 2 standard deviations above the mean, respectively.
Conclusion(s): Introducing USPs representing clinical scenarios revealed marked inter-provider variability. Positive associations between rates of excessive, discretionary and indicated ordering suggest tendencies for comprehensiveness over prudence. Over one-fifth of residents completing all 3 cases were high-utilizers, and nearly one in ten were super-utilizers. Awareness of provider-level ordering tendencies can guide education and interventions supporting appropriate diagnostic use

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