Faculty Bibliography

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.

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

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: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.

BACKGROUND:System based practice (SBP) milestones require trainees to effectively navigate the larger health care system for optimal patient care. In gastroenterology training programs, the assessment of SBP is difficult due to high volume, high acuity inpatient care, as well as inconsistent direct supervision. Nevertheless, structured assessment is required for training programs. We hypothesized that objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) would be an effective tool for assessment of SBP. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To develop a novel method for SBP milestone assessment of gastroenterology fellows using the OSCE. METHODS:For this observational study, we created 4 OSCE stations: Counseling an impaired colleague, handoff after overnight call, a feeding tube placement discussion, and giving feedback to a medical student on a progress note. Twenty-six first year fellows from 7 programs participated. All fellows encountered identical case presentations. Checklists were completed by trained standardized patients who interacted with each fellow participant. A report with individual and composite scores was generated and forwarded to program directors to utilize in formative assessment. Fellows also received immediate feedback from a faculty observer and completed a post-session program evaluation survey. RESULTS:." One hundred percent of the fellows stated they would incorporate OSCE learning into their clinical practice. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:OSCEs may be used for standardized evaluation of SBP milestones. Trainees scored lower on SBP milestones than other more concrete milestones. Training programs should consider OSCEs for assessment of SBP.

The revision of the curriculum at New York University School of Medicine in 2010, with a reduction of the preclerkship curriculum to 18 months, made it possible to offer an accelerated 3-year pathway in 2013 for students who know their career path. The goals of the program include individualizing education, reducing student debt, and integrating undergraduate and graduate medical education. This accelerated 3-year doctor of medicine (3YMD) pathway is the first program of its kind in the United States to offer conditional acceptance to residency programs in all specialties through the National Resident Matching Program. Since inception of the pathway 6 years ago, 81 students have graduated. Critical components to successfully launch and implement the program are described.Unwavering commitment to the program as a high institutional priority by the dean and vice dean for education facilitated the support required by department chairs and residency program directors and the flexibility needed for success. Alignment between the 3- and 4-year pathways has made it possible to add points of entry into the 3-year pathway during the second and third years and to shift back into the 4-year pathway, as warranted. Modifications to how 3YMD students are mentored included changing the role of the departmental advisor and adding a dedicated 3YMD pathway advisor who serves as an advocate for both the students and the program. Having a relatively large number of 3YMD students has contributed to the success of the program and facilitated acceptance by the residencies.