Faculty Bibliography

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: Low-value tests, defined as inappropriate for a given clinical scenario, are ordered in one in five clinic visits. Residents tend to over-order diagnostic tests to "minimize uncertainty" of presenting cases, even though these tests are not useful according to Bayesian statistics; a pursuit deemed the "Ulysses syndrome". Simultaneously, evidence suggests residents misuse preventive tests in half of relevant clinical scenarios. We sought to quantify ordering behaviors in urban primary care clinics across three unannounced standardized 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 an urban, safety-net hospital. All electronic orders were extracted via chart review. Scenario-specific appropriateness of diagnostic testing was determined by referencing United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and society clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). "Preventive" tests (such as lipid panels or hemoglobin A1C) were derived from USPSTF guidelines whereas "Diagnostic" tests (such as pulmonary function testing for Asthma or heterophile antibodies for Fatigue) were from CPGs. "Excessive" tests were those not explicitly indicated for a given scenario in either USPSTF or CPGs (versus "indicated" tests).
Result(s): Indicated tests were ordered in 29% of Well (124 encounters), 16% of Fatigue (148 encounters), and 12% of Asthma (170 encounters) cases. One or more excessive tests were ordered in 44%, 22%, and 17% of Well, Fatigue, and Asthma encounters respectively. The distribution of indicated and excessive tests for preventive versus diagnostic purposes varied by case: In Well visits, the majority (71%) of excessive testing was in pursuit of a diagnosis, while three-quarters of indicated testing was for preventive purposes. In Fatigue and Asthma visits, the reverse patterns were true: the majority of indicated tests ordered were diagnostic (81% and 68%, respectively) while the majority of excessive tests were preventive (78% and 63%, respectively).
Conclusion(s): Introducing USPs to resident clinics revealed that, for patients presenting without a chief complaint (Well visit), residents successfully ordered less than one-third of indicated tests, and over 75% of inappropriately ordered tests pursued a diagnosis. For patients presenting with chief complaints (Fatigue and Asthma), rates of appropriate ordering were even lower (16% and 12%), and tended to overlook preventive care. In these cases, inappropriate tests tended to be ordered for preventive purposes. Awareness of resident mis-utilization of preventive and diagnostic testing in distinct clinical circumstances can guide educational efforts towards evidence-based care and resource stewardship

Background: Asthma education should focus on patient self-management support. Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), as measured by standardized patients (SPs), provide a controlled, simulated setting for timed competency assessments while Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) measure clinical skills transfer in real world clinical settings. Both enable us to assess skills critical for providing quality care to patients. Learners seeing USPs have added real world stressors such as clinical load. This study describes differences in education and activation skills in two assessment contexts.
Method(s): A cohort of primary care residents (n=20) were assessed during two time points: an OSCE and a USP visit at an urban, safety-net clinic from 2009-2010. Residents consented to use of their de-identified routine educational data for research. The SP and USPs presented with the same case; a female asthmatic patient with limited understanding of illness management and concern over symptom exacerbation. Providers were rated using a behaviorally-anchored checklist upon visit completion. Competency domains assessed included patient education (4 items) and activation (4 items). Within the education domain, items included illness management, while the activation domain items assessed resident communication/counseling style. Responses were scored as not done or well done. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain. OSCE vs USP means were compared using a paired samples t-test.
Result(s): Residents were more likely to offer an oral steroid as treatment in the OSCE case (50% vs. 35% for USPs), but performed better with USPs on most other items including domain scores. Residents seeing a USP scored significantly higher on five out of eight individual assessment items (p<.05) including recommending a spacer, helping a patient understand their condition, making patients feel like they can take control of their own health, helping a patient understand illness management, and having a patient leave feeling confident in finding solutions independently. Inhaler technique was assessed rarely in either setting (OSCE: 15%, USP: 5%). Domain summary scores (% well done) from the OSCE (activation: 12%, education: 31%) were lower than USP scores (activation: 84%, education: 37%), with differences in overall activation scores being significant (t(19)=-8.905, p<.001).
Conclusion(s): OSCEs are a widely accepted tool for measuring resident competency in a standardized environment but may be focused primarily on knowledge and technical skills. While SPs are trained to be as objective as possible, rater bias might impact scores. USPs may provide more nuanced assessments of communication skills in a setting with reduced time constraints. Next steps include examining attitudes toward OSCEs vs the clinical setting, looking at impact of provider gender, and examining setting-specific issues that promote or hinder high quality care

Needs and Objectives: In the changing landscape of healthcare, physicians must be adaptive, visionary and evidence-based in their approach to care Medical education must be adjusted to allow learners to gain skills that prepare them to function effectively in this new paradigm. In order to meet these needs, we developed a community based curriculum with emphasis on transitions of care, population health and innovation of care. Setting and Participants: Curriculum was developed as part of a new NYU Internal Medicine Residency Community Health Track, housed at NYU Langone Hospital-Brooklyn, a community based, academic teaching hospital. Ambulatory training is based at the Family Health Centers at NYU Langone, a network of FQHCs. Both the hospital and FQHCs serve a vulnerable, diverse community in south Brooklyn. To date we have recruited one class of 10 interns. As of July 2020 we anticipate having a full track consisting of 30 residents. Description: Our first year curriculum aims to develop a framework for thinking about community health introducing key concepts such as population-based care, novel delivery of care, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Early in their training, residents completed a community assessment using observational data, interviews and census track data. These assessments paired with collaboration with CHW and community organizations gave them first hand exposure to our area's specific challenges and gaps in care. The residents began to develop skills in home care by working with an interdisciplinary team of doctors, nurses and CHWs. Additionally, they participated in a transitions of care workshop, examining their own hospital patients who had been readmitted and identifying best practices for hospital discharge. Evaluation: A multi-method evaluation plan is essential as we evaluate and strengthen the curriculum. Qualitative feedback is gathered at regular intervals throughout the year along with surveys of trainees. Initial Results suggest that curricula is well-received by residents. Aggregated longitudinal educational data including resident self-report, 360^oevaluations and performance-based assessment, (OSCEs, USP visits) will contribute to program evaluation. The most important outcome will be how these trainees practice once they have graduated. We plan to use postgraduate surveys to judge the impact of the curriculum. Discussion/Reflection/Lessons Learned: We adapted curriculum to focus on our particular community and created innovative programs to improve the population's health. Essential to these accomplishments was our partnership with learners and our reliance on their feedback to guide curriculum development. Allowing trainees to explore their interests has lead to visionary projects. We have learned that by being flexible and adapting to the learners' needs and interests we can serve our community in deeper ways than we had initially anticipated. However, structural limitations of the clinic coupled with institutional changes resulted in a slower time frame for clinical adaptations

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: The core Entrustable Professional Activities medical school graduates should be able to perform on day 1 of residency provides a framework for readiness for residency. Communication skills are an essential foundation for these core EPAs and yet there have been few studies that describe communication competence across the UME-GME continuum. We report on our OSCE-based assessment of communication skills from the first few weeks of medical school to the first year of medicine residency.
Method(s): Assessment of communication is consistent in our OSCE program across UME and GME. Domains include Information Gathering (5 items), Relationship Development (6 items), and Patient Education (3 items) and these are assessed via a behaviorally anchored checklist (scores=% well done) that has strong reliability and validity evidence. In this study, we report on 3 multi-station OSCEs: the Introductory Clinical Experience (ICE) OSCE that occurs within the first weeks of medical school; the high-stakes, pass/fail Comprehensive Clinical Skills Examination (CCSE) OSCE that is fielded after clerkship year; and the Medicine Residency Program's PGY 1 OSCE. Across 3 classes of medical school (2014-2016) we have complete data for the 24 students who continued on in our Medicine Residency (and who provided consent to include their educational data in an IRB-approved registry). Analyses focus on differences in communication skills over time and between cohorts and the relationship between communication skills measured in medical school and those assessed in residency.
Result(s): Communication scores show significant improvement through medical school (but not into residency) in Information gathering (ICE mean=56%; CCSE mean=76%; PGY1 mean=77%) (F=11.54, p<.001, ICE< CCSE) and in relationship development (ICE=59%; CCSE=78%; PGY1= 74% (F=10.68, p<.001, ICE < CCSE). Mean patient education skills, however, increase significantly across all 3 time points (32% to 50% to 65%; F=31.00, p<.001). Patterns are similar across cohorts except that the Class of 2016 means increase from CCSE to PGY1. Regression analyses show that CCSE information gathering scores are more strongly associated with PGY performance than ICE scores (Std Beta=.32 vs.06), while for relationship development, it is the ICE scores that are more strongly associated (Std Beta=.40 vs.24). ICE and CCSE patient education skills have associations with PGY1 skill of similar size (Std Beta=.30 and.28).
Conclusion(s): Findings, despite the small sample, suggest a clear developmental trajectory for communication skills development and that information gathering and patient education skills may be more influenced by medical school than relationship development. That communication skills seem to level out in PGY1 highlights need for re-consolidation as clinical complexity increases. Results can inform theory development on how communication skills develop and point to transitions where skills practice/feedback may be particularly important

Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the efficacy of a 4-month school-based health, nutrition and exercise intervention on body fatness and examine possible effects of demographic and anthropometric covariates. Methods/UNASSIGNED: = 469) received a 12-session classroom-based health and nutrition educational programme with an optional exercise intervention. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.005). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:A 4-month school-based health intervention was effective in decreasing measures of adiposity in middle school students, particularly in men, participants who were obese and South Asians.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviour can interfere with patient care. Empowering trainees to address each other's unprofessional behaviour can help address a larger number of incidents that may not be witnessed by supervisors, as well as promote a culture of professionalism in a teaching programme. The goal of the study was to teach trainees to effectively address observed unprofessional behaviour and to assess the impact of this exercise on the percentage of cases directly addressed, reported or ignored 6-12 months after the initial training. METHODS: Eighty-four trainees participated in objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) cases designed to address a colleague's inappropriate behaviour. Baseline and follow-up surveys performed 6-12 months after the OSCE were completed detailing the number of incidents witnessed in colleagues and the method employed to address those incidents: personally address (with level of satisfaction), report or ignore. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the number of unprofessional incidents identified after the OSCE (pre-OSCE, 1.12 per resident; post-OSCE, 1.69 per resident; t = 2.27, p = 0.029). Of the 72 incidents at baseline, 43 per cent were addressed directly and 43 per cent of those had a satisfactory resolution. Of the 71 incidents described 6-12 months later, 61 per cent were addressed directly and 79 per cent of those had a satisfactory resolution. Trainees were more likely to address rather than to report unprofessional behaviour chi2 (2, 58) = 13, p = 0.001. Empowering trainees to address each other's unprofessional behaviour can help promote a culture of professionalism DISCUSSION: The intervention had a significant impact on the percentage of trainees that addressed any observed unprofessional behaviour, and the rate of satisfaction after doing so. It did not change the percentage of cases that were neither addressed nor reported.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Research staff are critical to productive translational research teams, yet their professional development is rarely formally addressed. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We created Strategic Teamwork for Effective Practice Mentor Development Program (STEP-MDP) to promote skills development and build a community of practice. We ran and evaluated the STEP-MDP for 32 participants, which consisted of workshops focusing on team communication and mentorship/coaching skills. Results/UNASSIGNED:We found that STEP-MDP had a long-term positive impact on participants and their teams. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:This program facilitated the professional development of research staff.