Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: All physicians need to be skilled at diagnosing, treating, and managing depression. We designed an unannounced standard patient (USP) case to assess residents' clinical skills in addressing depression and explored how those skills are associated with residents' general clinical skills in order to design targeted curriculum on depression. METHODS: The USP was a 26 y.o. male presenting as a new patient to a clinic complaining of fatigue and problems sleeping. Goals of the case were to diagnose a common presentation of depression and make a treatment/follow-up plan. The USP was trained to have a positive PHQ 2 &PHQ 9, family history of depression, and be willing to engage in medication and/or therapy if offered. A post-visit checklist was used by the SPs to assess communication, patient education, and assessment skills using behaviorally anchored items rated as not done, partly done, or well done. A systematic chart review was conducted to examine treatment, quality of documentation, and referrals. Case fidelity was checked by audiotape and confirmed by PHQ 9 score in the EHR. Evidence based treatment was defined as prescribing an SSRI and/or providing a psychiatric referral; if neither of those, scheduling follow-up for within 2 weeks. RESULTS: 122 residents saw the USP case from 2009-2015. Mean visit length = 45 min, SD 25 (14 to 183 min). The patient was screened for depression with a PHQ 2 in 93% of visits; 82% also had a PHQ 9. Overall, 77 residents (63%) provided appropriate treatment: 8% prescribed an SRRI, 23% provided a referral, 19% did both, 7% prescribed a sleep aid and <2 week follow-up, and 43% provided a combination of these treatments. 45 residents (37%) did not provide appropriate treatment: 27 (60%) prescribed a sleep aid and follow-up >2 weeks and 18 (40%) provided no treatment/referral and follow-up >2 weeks. There were no differences in exploration of medical history or substance use, but 83% of residents who treated appropriately had a PHQ 9 compared to 62% of residents who did not treat appropriately. 71% also included depression on the problem list compared to 13%of residents who did not treat appropriately. Residents who treated appropriately had significantly better clinical skills assessed by the USP including: overall communication (71% vs. 54%, p = 0.00), information gathering (72% vs. 55%, p = 0.01), relationship development (75% vs. 60%, p = 0.03), patient education (55% vs. 21%, p = 0.00), and patient activation skills (33% vs. 13%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although almost all residents obtained the relevant information, only about 50% of residents diagnosed depression. PHQ 9 appears to be associated with providing more effective treatment, supporting the importance of health system screening protocols. Residents' communication and depression-specific patient education and activation skills seem to be related to how they identify and manage depression, suggesting that interventions to build these skills may lead to higher quality care

Objective: To present clinical and radiographic descriptions of conditions that may feature corticospinal tract abnormalities observed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Background: Corticospinal tract lesions have a broad differential diagnosis, including neurodegenerative diseases, toxic/metabolic derangements, malignancies, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases, and neurogenetic conditions. Design/Methods: Review of clinical presentations and brain MRIs. Results: Conditions that have been associated with corticospinal tract hyperintensities on brain MRI include: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, primary lateral sclerosis, heroin leukoencephalopathy, brainstem glioma, neuroBehcets, HIV infection, neuromyelitis optica, Krabbe A disease, adult polyglucosan body disorder, Xlinked Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, Behr syndrome, Whipple disease, and sequela of liver transplantation. We present representative images and discuss clinical and radiographic features that distinguishing these conditions. Conclusions: Corticospinal tract lesions have a heterogenous etiology, with widely different treatments and prognoses. An understanding of these potential etiologies will assist neurologists confronted with this imaging finding

BACKGROUND: In the patient-centered medical home model of health care, both health care providers (HCPs) and patients must understand their respective roles and responsibilities, view the other as a partner, and use communication skills that promote shared decision making. This is particularly necessary in chronic conditions where outcomes depend on behavior change and in underserved populations where the burden of chronic disease is high. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to determine if a Patient Empowerment Program (PEP) (1) is acceptable to patients and feasible across multiple clinical sites; (2) will increase patient preference for control in medical decision making, improve patient perceptions of patient-HCP communication, and increase patient activation; (3) is associated with an increase in diabetes self-management behaviors; and (4) has an effect on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level. METHODS: This study recruited English-speaking adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from three urban clinical sites in New York City and randomized them to an immediate intervention group that completed the PEP intervention or a deferred intervention group that served as a wait-list control and completed the PEP intervention after 3-4 months. The PEP intervention consists of two facilitated small group sessions. Session 1 focuses on defining HCP and patient roles in the medical encounter by introducing ideal communication behaviors in each role and by providing both positive and negative examples of patient-HCP encounters. Session 2 focuses on practicing communication skills by role-playing with actors who serve as standardized health care providers. After the role play, participants set goals for their own health care and for future interactions with their HCPs. Outcome measures include the Patient Activation Measure; Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment; Krantz Health Opinion Survey; SF-12v2 Health Survey; Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire; and HbA1c. These measures will be assessed at the time of enrollment, after the waiting period (deferred intervention only), and then postintervention at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: Study recruitment occurred from November 2014 to June 2015, with a total of 80 patients enrolled. To date, 45 participants have attended at least one session of the PEP intervention. Further intervention sessions and post-intervention follow-up are ongoing, with data collection set to be completed in April 2016 and results of data analysis available by June 2016. CONCLUSIONS: From preliminary participant self-report data, our PEP intervention is acceptable to low-income, low-health literate patients and feasible to hold across multiple clinical sites. Participants have reported learning specific ways to change their behaviors at their next HCP visit (eg, stating their opinions, asking more questions). With the forthcoming quantitative data on participant attitudinal and behavior change, the PEP intervention may ultimately empower participants within the medical encounter and improve health outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to determine whether a point-of-care intervention that navigates willing, low-acuity patients from the emergency department (ED) to a Primary Care Clinic will increase future primary care follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental trial at an urban safety net hospital. Adults presenting to the ED for select low-acuity problems were eligible. Patients were excluded if arriving by emergency medical services, if febrile, or if the triage nurse believed they required ED care. We enrolled 965 patients. Navigators escorted a subset of willing participants to the Primary Care Clinic (in the same hospital complex), where they were assigned a personal physician, were given an overview of clinic services, and received same-day clinic care. The primary outcome was Primary Care Clinic follow-up within 1 year of the index ED visit among patients having no previous primary care provider. RESULTS: In the bivariate intention-to-treat analysis, 50.3% of intervention group patients versus 36.9% of control group patients with no previous primary care provider had at least 1 Primary Care Clinic follow-up visit in the year after the intervention. In the multivariable analysis, the absolute difference in having at least 1 Primary Care Clinic follow-up for the intervention group compared with the control group was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 2.2% to 16.3%). There was no significant difference in the number of future ED visits. CONCLUSION: A point-of-care intervention offering low-acuity ED patients the opportunity to alternatively be treated at the hospital's Primary Care Clinic resulted in increased future primary care follow-up compared with standard ED referral practices.