Faculty Bibliography

Background /UNASSIGNED:Physicians across specialties need to be skilled at diagnosing and treating depression, yet studies show underrecognition and inadequate treatment. Understanding the reasons requires specifying the influence of patient presentation, screening, and physician competence. Objective /UNASSIGNED:We deployed an unannounced standardized patient (SP) case to assess clinic screening and internal medicine (IM) residents' practices in identifying, documenting, and treating depression. Methods /UNASSIGNED:The SP represented a new patient presenting to the outpatient clinic, complaining of fatigue, with positive Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) items 2 and 9 and a family history of depression. The SPs assessed clinic screening and IM resident practices; appropriate treatment was assessed through chart review and defined as the resident doing at least 1 of the following: prescribing a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), making a referral, or scheduling a 2-week follow-up. Results /UNASSIGNED:< .001). Conclusions /UNASSIGNED:The use of unannounced SPs helps identify targets for training residents to provide evidence-based treatment of depression.

Background: Conflicting data exists on the relationship between outpatient visits and emergency department (ED) visit and admission rates. While some have shown outpatient access prevents ED visits and admissions, others show that factors such as continuity are more important. A mental health diagnosis is consistently cited as a factor associated with increased inpatient utilization. There is little published data about resident-run outpatient clinics and their outcomes, including how these ambulatory contacts affect ED visit and admission rates. Methods: The medical record was used to collect data for all patients seen at least once in the primary care resident clinic at a large, public New York City hospital over the course of 1 academic year. We counted the number of outpatient visits per patient, regardless of type, including both primary care visits and clinic visits for all medical and surgical subspecialties. We controlled for the level of health of each patient using locally developed scores. Our primary outcomes were total number of ED visits and total number of inpatient admissions; secondary outcomes were inpatient length of stay (LOS) and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC). We conducted bivariate analyses, using T-Tests and ANOVA, and multivariate analysis, using ordinary least of squares regression, to determine whether increased contact with outpatient clinics was associated with ED visit and admission rates. A separate analysis was conducted for patients with a mental health diagnosis. Results: Our sample consisted of 2,988 patients, seen at least once in the resident-run primary care clinic, averaging 7 outpatient visits across all sub-specialties. There were 2,544 ED visits (1317 unique patients), 571 inpatient admissions (368 unique patients), and 126 ACSC admissions (97 unique patients). Patients who were hospitalized averaged 2 admissions; average LOS was 9.5 days. Multivariate analysis, controlling for sociodemographic and health factors, found more ambulatory care visits were associated with more ED visits and more inpatient admissions (p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant association between ambulatory care visits and LOS or ACSC admissions. A mental health diagnosis was associated with increased ambulatory care visits, and increased ED visits and inpatient admissions, and a 4 day longer LOS. Conclusions: Among patients seen in the resident internal medicine clinic, we were surprised to find that more outpatient visits were positively associated with more ED visits and admissions when controlling for all sociodemographic factors and health status. Our study adds to the body of literature, as there has been little previously published about resident clinic outcomes. Further studies are needed on how to improve these resident run clinics in order to help prevent ED visits and admission. Our study also showed that a mental health diagnosis was positively associated with ambulatory care visits, consistent with the previous literature

BACKGROUND: Effective smoking cessation counseling improves smokers' health and quality of life. As part of our assessment program, an Unannounced Standardized Patient (USP) case was developed to measure residents' performance in a routine visit with a smoker. METHODS: The USP was a 40 year-old male new patient presenting with heartburn. He began smoking up to two packs/day at 22 years old; at the time of the visit, he reports having cut down to one pack/day and quitting cold turkey twice in the past only to return to smoking. If the resident engages him, he discusses his relationship with smoking and the possibility of quitting. TheUSP received 6 hours of character and checklist training to ensure standardized portrayal and evaluation. Data was collected using 2 forms of assessment: a post-visit USP checklist and a systematic review of the EMR (lab orders, prescriptions, and referrals). The 170- item USP checklist measured communication, patient education, assessment skills, and case-specific items. Each response option included descriptive behavioral anchors and was rated as not done, partly done, or well done. RESULTS: Data was examined from 73 USP visits from 2009-2015. Mean visit length = 37 min, SD = 15 min (range: 15 to 95 min). Overall communication scores ranged from 17 to 100% with an average of 62% (Cronbach's alpha = 0.75). All residents documented History of Tobacco Use or Tobacco Use Disorder in the EMR, and the majority (82%) prescribed smoking cessation medication. There was variation in the sophistication of smoking cessation-counseling approach. Whilemost residents (78%) discussed the risks of smoking and/or the benefits to quitting, significantly fewer (48%) explored the patient's view of the pros and cons of his smoking (p = 0.00). Residents who prescribed smoking cessation medication and discussed risks/benefits to smoking/quitting (N = 31) were compared to residents who did the same but also invited the patient to discuss his personal pros and cons of smoking (N = 29). Groups were not significantly different by PGY or gender. Patients who were asked to discuss their pros/cons rated the resident higher on patient activation questions (0-2 point scale), including "Helped you understand the importance of quitting smoking" (1.38 vs 0.90, p = 0.00), "Made you want to change your smoking" (1.10 vs 0.52, p = 0.00), and "Made you feel like you would be able to quit smoking" (1.07 vs 0.35, p = 0.00). There were no significant differences in labs ordered, referrals to a smoking cessation program, or quality of documentation. CONCLUSIONS: While all residents ask about tobacco use and most appropriately prescribe medication, fewer than half demonstrate the skills known to motivate patients to quit smoking. Curricula needs to reinforce the importance of a patient discussing their personal relationship with smoking in order to feel activated and willing to engage in cessation

BACKGROUND: The shift toward a Patient Centered Medical Home has redefined healthcare delivery to be a patient centered affair. While this is beneficial, it also calls for patients to be more activated in the doctor's office and responsible in their self-directed care outside of the office. For patients with chronic diseases, the burden of illness is even higher and requires significantly more effort in disease selfmanagement. We developed 4 hour Patient Empowerment Program (PEP) to bridge that gap through a program training patients with diabetes in the skills necessary to communicate effectively with providers and engage in shared decision making (SDM). Previously, we reported improved diabetes self-care behaviors at 6 months post intervention based on standardized questionnaires. This study examined participants' perspectives on PEP from 1-2 years post intervention. METHODS: 71 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited from 2 urban safety-net hospitals to participate in PEP. 33 patients completed the intervention and 28 patients completed a 6-month follow-up assessment. Participants were predominantly low-income, racial minorities, with limited health literacy (Newest Vital Sign M= 2.21, SD = 1.67). We reached 22 of those 28 participants, at 11 to 20months post intervention (M= 16, SD = 2.31). They were interviewed via telephone, with structured open-ended questions asking them to reflect on what they took away from the classes, and whether they'd behaved differently during doctor visits or cared for their diabetes differently since the classes. A qualitative analysis was made of these responses, using Dedoose software to assist in analysis. RESULTS: All 22 patients recalled PEP and could identify key concepts from it. Participants referenced the doctor-patient relationship, from "how to improve relationship with my doctor" to "practicing role of doctor and patient in interaction and relationship". 86% of participants identified changes in their behavior since PEP- 36% identifying that they share more information with their doctor now than they did before, 18% reporting that they ask more questions, and another 18% reporting that they are more proactive in their diabetes care. When asked about their diabetes self-management, prevalent themes were better diet/food choices, exercise, and adherence to medication. 3 patients reported losing weight since the classes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite follow up occurring almost a year later for some, and almost 2 years for others, the message of PEP was clear and compelling. Participant's perspective on their role as a patient changed from a passive recipient of healthcare to a more engaged and activated one. They felt empowered to participate in SDM with their doctors and more comfortable speaking up for their preferences. While further validation is necessary, PEP offers an important way to prepare patients to become true partners with their providers

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is an important quality indicator, and healthcare organizations spend considerable resources assessing patient satisfaction. Yet a view of patient experience gleaned from patient satisfaction measures tends to show high levels of reported satisfaction, with little variation. Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) have been used to assess providers' clinical skills, but can also provide other information about the healthcare encounter. This study examined the concordance between USP and patient reports of care at the same site. METHODS: Data was gathered at Bellevue Hospital Primary Care Clinic, a city safety-net hospital. USPs assess internal medicine residents training there, and complete a behaviorally anchored checklist of resident skills and interactions with other staff, wait times, ease of clinic navigation, and perceptions of team functioning. Data from 155 USP visits from July 2015-Oct 2016 was used in this study. Independently, as part of team-training efforts in the Primary Care Clinic, patient satisfaction surveys were collected, addressing similar issues. At the end of a clinic visit, research assistants unrelated to patient care asked patients to complete a 30-item survey. 118 surveys were completed between July-November 2016. 11 items appeared on both scales (though worded slightly different) and were used in this comparison. These included questions about clerical (CA) and patient care associates (PCA), and providers (MDs, NPs, PAs), provision of information, team functioning and clinic environment. Of the 11 items, 4 had the same response choices. 7 had differing numbers of responses (eg 4 vs 3 point Likert scales), evenly distributed across patient and USP scales. For each of these items, we collapsed items so to maximize positive ratings (eg. on a 4 point scale from poor to excellent, "good" and "excellent" were combined rather than "good" and "fair"). Chi-square analyses were computed to examine group differences. RESULTS: On chi-square analyses, 9 of the 11 items significantly differed between the USP and patient groups, with patients more likely to have positive ratings. These included rating PCAs as friendlier (x² = 8.67(1,206), p = .003) and providers better at answering questions (x² = 11.75 (2,265), p = .003); reporting that they received sufficient/clear instructions about medication refills and follow-up (x² = 29.5(2,264), p = .0001); finding the clinic atmosphere calmer than did USPs (x² = 10.5 (2,265), p=.005) and noting that the team functioned better (x² = 7.31(2,268), p = .026). There were no significant differences in willingness to recommend the clinic or on clarity of CAs' communication. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study document the differing perspectives of patients and USPs. Consistent with previous work, patients in our study tended to rate most items higher than did the USPs. USPs provide a different, and likely a more critical look at the clinical setting and this information can enhance efforts to improve patient experience. (Table Presented)

NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES: Team-based primary care (PC) is seen as the best way to provide proactive, patient-centered quality care. However, developing these team-based skills is difficult in the ever-shifting, stressful healthcare environment. We sought to develop effective training to enhance team functioning at an urban safety-net hospital, with the goal of clinical transformation (e.g. improving clinic flow, enhancing care for patients with diabetes). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Team training intervention at Bellevue Hospital's Adult Ambulatory Care Center, flagship of the NYC Health & Hospitals (H +H), serving poor, diverse patients with complex medical and social needs. There are 4 adult PC teams, each with 8 attending physicians, 20 residents, 1-2 physician assistants, 2 nurses, 5 patient care associates (PCA), and 2 clerical associates (CA), all caring for a panel of ~7,500 patients. To date, we have completed a training cycle for one team, with 26 members: 10 providers (7 MDs, 2 PAs, and 1 NP), 4 RNs, 5 PCAs, 3 CAs, and 4 residents participating. We are scheduled to complete training of a second team in February 2017, with the other 2 to follow. DESCRIPTION: We partnered with a parallel NYC H + H effort, enabling a seamless NYU-HRSA/NYC H + H program with increased time allotted. This includes 4 three-hour workshops co-led by NYC H + H and NYU-HRSA faculty. Each workshop blends activating, team-building exercises for teams; mini-lectures on topics like roles and responsibilities, communication skills, huddles, and experiential activities using the team's patient data. This is reinforced with seven, 30-min biweekly meetings to follow up on teamidentified topics and facilitate team members' quality improvement projects. EVALUATION: A 31-item (each item rated 0-3), retrospective pre/post survey was administered to trainees after training, addressing individual skills and attitudes (16 items) and team functioning (15 items)14 of 26 participants (54%) in team 1 completed the survey, and Team 2 participants will complete the survey in Feb. 2017. Training resulted in increased rating of individual skills t = 4.86, p < .0001) and team functioning (t = 4.02, p = .003). Additional metrics, including tracking teams' QI efforts and assessing patient experience (e.g. Unannounced Standardized Patient reports) and administrative and panel level data, are ongoing. DISCUSSION/REFLECTION/LESSONS LEARNED: Implementation of successful team training in an under-resourced, urban primary care setting is challenging. It demands flexibility, tailoring to participants' concerns; and responding to changing clinical and administrative circumstances. Essential to success was partnering with team members to guide the training