Faculty Bibliography

This article describes an innovative post-master's advanced certificate in gerontology program developed by the Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing at the New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing. The program provides advanced practice registered nurses geriatric content to meet eligibility criteria for the Adult-Gerontology Primary Care NP certification exam and develops interprofessional care providers to care for complex older adults.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are effective and appropriate therapy for many types of acute pain. Epidemiologic evidence supports a direct relationship between increased opioid prescribing and increases in opioid use disorders and overdoses. OBJECTIVE: To tailor our residency curriculum, we designed and fielded an unannounced standardized patient (USP) case involving a patient with acute back pain who is requesting Vicodin (5/325 mg). We describe residents' case management and examine whether their management decisions, including opioid prescribing, were related to their core clinical skills. METHODS: Results are based on 50 (USP) visits with residents in 2 urban primary care clinics. Highly trained USPs portrayed a patient with acute lower back pain who was taking leftover Vicodin with effective pain relief but was running out. We describe how residents managed this case, using both USP report and chart review data, and compare summary clinical skills scores between those who prescribed Vicodin and those who did not. RESULTS: Of the 50 residents, 18 prescribed Vicodin (10-60 pills). Among those who did not prescribe (32/50), most (50%) prescribed ibuprofen. Eighty-three percent of the prescribers and 72% of nonprescribers ordered physical therapy (nonsignificant). Of the 18 prescribers, 13 documented checking the prescription monitoring database. Prescribers had significantly better communication scores than nonprescribers (relationship development: 80% vs. 58% well done, P = .029; patient education: 59% vs. 31% well done, P = .018). Assessment summary scores were also higher (60% vs. 46%) but not significantly (P = .060). Patient satisfaction and activation scores were higher in the prescribers than nonprescribers (71% vs. 39%, P = .004 and 48% vs. 26%, P = .034, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most Vicodin prescribers did not follow prescribing guidelines, and they demonstrated better communication and assessment skills than the nonprescribers. Results suggest the need to guide residents in using a systematic approach to prescribing opioids safely and to develop an acceptable alternative pain management plan when they decide against prescribing.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare increases demands, primary care physicians need evidenced-based, patient-centered care coordination, effective use of information technology, interdisciplinary team functioning and shared decision-making skills more so in underserved areas. In 2008, we documented 20 years of the NYU/Bellevue Primary Care Internal Medicine Residency Program (NYUBPC) on readiness for practice1. In light of the recent primary care changes we assessed our recent training of Primary Care Residents in high quality, person-centered, systems-savvy, team-based care for the underserved. Specifically we aimed to: 1. Assess the NYUBPCP impact on graduate career choices, values and style 2. Elicit reflections that illustrate complexities in educating primary care physicians METHODS: We surveyed 56 graduates of the NYUBPCP from 2007-2014. The 44 question survey included 12 open-ended questions about career path, current practice, preparedness for practice and specifics about how aspects of training provided necessary skills and knowledge. Responses were unidentified. We received 37 responses, (66%). RESULTS: 36 respondents currently provide clinical care, with about 40% of their time spent in a primary care setting (S.D. 32%). On a 4- point scale 85% either agreed or strongly agreed with Primary Care as a career choice. 74% felt prepared for the challenges of a primary care practice, rating clinical experiences with underserved communities, and the psychosocial, clinical epidemiology and health policy focus as essential aspects of training. All but 4 provide care to medically underserved populations. They valued the community of peers and colleagues that the NYUBPCP provided. While 53% rated their clinical site as hectic/chaotic (4 or 5 on a 5 point scale), only 6% reported persistently feeling burnout. 19% reported at least one symptom of burnout. Qualitative analyses revealed overlapping themes in alumni perceptions of how residency influenced current practice, aspects of training that were difficult to implement and expectations for the future directions of primary care. Responses demonstrated a mismatch between the "purity" of primary care practice graduates strove to achieve after residency and the actuality of a practice influenced by external factors (e.g. time pressures, reimbursement issues and metric achievements). Some found it difficult to be involved with research or advocacy while in full-time clinical practice. Graduates believed the future of primary care lies in a team-based approach. CONCLUSIONS: A training program emphasizing rigorous curriculum, committed role modeling, care of the underserved, and strong residency community for support continues to document high rates of retention in primary care. They are well adapted entering physicians with the skills and attitudes necessary to succeed in primary care and become educators of the next generation

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

BACKGROUND: It is critically important for medical schools to understand how well prepared their graduates are for residency and yet we do not have a full understanding of how well competencies, assessed in medical school, transfer to residency. This study explores how communication skills measured in a high-stakes, rigorous, comprehensive OSCE in the 3rd year of medical school are related to performance in a similar OSCE in residency and to Residency Program Directors' ratings of intern competence. METHODS: We analyzed communication skills from three time points in a longitudinal cohort of NYU graduates who entered our Internal Medicine Residency (n = 42). 39 provided consent for their GME-UME data to be compiled into a longitudinal, de-identified educational research database through an IRB-approved Registry. Communication skills were measured using a behaviorally anchored 15-item checklist across the 8-station, pass/fail, MS3 OSCE and then midway through PGY2 of residency in a 6- station OSCE (score =% of items rated well done). SPs also provided an overall rating of communication skills (not recommend, with reservations, recommend, highly recommend). In between, at the end of intern year, residents were also rated by their Program Directors on communication skills (and other competencies) using a 4-pt scale. RESULTS: OSCE communication performance assessed in medical school was modestly associated with performance in residency (r = .26, p = .07) but not with Program Directors' ratings of residents' communication skills as interns (r = .11, p = .28). Number of cases in which medical students were "not recommended" for their communication skills was negatively associated with residency OSCE communication scores (r = -.33, p = .05) and positively associated with number of "not recommends" (r = .46, p = .01) but not with Directors' ratings of interns (r = -.08, p = .49). Number of not recommends independently explained more variance in subsequent residency communication scores than did medical school performance (9% vs. 5%). While average OSCE communication scores improved from medical school to residency (65 to 71%), those with 2 or more "not recommends" improved significantly more than those with 1 or no not recommends. Overall, most learners' (21/39) communication scores improved substantially; less than a quarter (7) decreased; and about a quarter (11) were stable. CONCLUSIONS: While communication scores from medical school are associated with similarly measured scores in residency, SPs' decisions to "not recommend" students appear to serve as an independent indicator of future skill deficits. Patterns of change, however, are not necessarily straightforward: students with the most "not recommends" improved the most. The ability to track competency assessments longitudinally is essential for understanding the transition from medical school to residency and future research will benefit from larger sample sizes and the inclusion of learner characteristics that may explain developmental patterns

BACKGROUND: At Bellevue Hospital Center (BHC), we have a robust Unannounced Standardized Patient (USP) program, where trained actors portraying real patients in the clinical setting, incognito, assess the residents' skills following their visit. We sought to determine the relationship between USP ratings of residents' skills and clinical outcomes among the residents' continuity patient panels to define educationally sensitive patient outcomes. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of PGY 2 internal medicine residents with at least 2 USP visits between 7/1/14-6/30/15 and ambulatory care patient panels at BHC. The two outcome variables were the percentage of hypertensive patients in the residents' panel with blood pressure (BP) <140/90, and the average of the most recent glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) result among the residents' patients with diabetes. The predictor variables included mean USP ratings of residents' clinical skills and mean faculty rating of the residents' clinic notes (scored for quality on a 0 to 3 scale). USPs used a behaviorally anchored checklist (not done, partly done, well done) for the following domains: communication, case specific assessment, patient education, physical examination, professionalism, management plan, patient satisfaction, and patient activation measure. We tested the correlations between USP scores with BP and HbA1C control, and then developed multivariate, linear regression models of USP scores on BP and HbA1C scores, respectively, each controlling for Avg. Chronic health score (ACHS, derived by scoring different clinical conditions by acuity and used to determine if the panel is getting sicker over time) and total number of patients in the panel (TNPP) because these variables were correlated with both the outcome and predictor variables. RESULTS: 29 PGY 2 residents had a mean of 2.5 (SD 1.0) USP visits during the study period. Residents' patient panels size varied (median 124, range 62- 171) and mean patient age was 48 years (SD 1.4). Patient Activation scores were correlated with Average Chronic Health Score (r = .482, p = .008) and Panel Average last A1c (r = -.311, p = .10). Patient activation scores explained 16% variance in the mean panel last HgA1c, (adjusted R2 .137, p = .08). Case specific Assessment & Patient Education skills across USP cases explained 21.5% of the variance and the Average Chart Note Score explained 14.4% of the variance in % of Hypertension controlled (adjusted R2.378, p < .009). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that learnable resident clinical skills are associated with quality of care indicators for HTN and DM control. In particular, being able to activate patients, assess and educate them and write high quality notes are pathways to quality care. Next steps are to confirm these findings in a larger dataset. Doing so will help align medical education with patient safety and care quality and provide guidance for educational and clinical research aimed at improving the health of populations served

NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES: Skillful research staff members are critical to productive translational research teams and yet their ongoing professional development is rarely formally addressed. Through the Strategic Teamwork for Effective Practice-Mentor Development Program (STEP-MDP), we aimed to both create a community of practice (COP) for research staff and build the skills needed to enhance research team performance. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected 16 participants of 32 stafflevel applicants from among the NYU Schools of Medicine, SocialWork and Nursing for the first STEP-MDP cohort. Participants included research assistants, coordinators, managers and directors. DESCRIPTION: We delivered 3, two-hour workshops, scheduled 3 weeks apart, focused on team communication, identifying team areas for improvement, and mentorship/coaching skills. Peer-Coaching Teams (PCTs) were created by paring participants at the same position level, and PCTs worked together at each session to explore and practice learned skills. Sessions featured brief didactics, group learning and exercises based on participants' real issues. A variety of active learning techniques such as brainstorming, role-playing, problem solving, and peer coaching were used. Practical core readings, worksheets and summary cards were provided. PCTs met between sessions to practice coaching skills, and troubleshoot problems. EVALUATION: Participants (N = 16) completed a 37-item (4 point scale) retrospective pre/post self-assessment of team behaviors and skills, and a STEP-MDP evaluation survey at the end. We saw pre-post improvements in each of 5 self-assessment domains: Communication (4 items, Pre-mean 2.66, Post mean 3.36, p = <.001), Leadership (8 items, Pre-mean 2.76, Post mean 3.55, p = <.001), Empowerment and Motivation (12 items, Pre-mean 2.86, Post mean 3.51, p = <.001), Coaching (6 items, Pre-mean 2.40, Post mean 3.58, p = <.001), and Community (3 items, Pre-mean 2.33, Post mean 3.76, p = <.001). On average, PCTs met twice (range 2-4 times) between workshop sessions. One commented on the value of working with peers in PCTs, having no one in a similar position within his immediate work environment. Participants' written comments strongly endorsed the value of the workshops for their work, with the coaching skills session seen as the most valuable. Some participants worry that skills will decrease over time without continued reinforcement. All but one participant reported that they planned to continue with the PCT. DISCUSSION/REFLECTION/LESSONS LEARNED: The number of applicants to our program suggests a need and motivation for staff to participate in the STEP-MDP. Participants' reported improved skills and sense of community. To maintain the COP and address worry about degradation of skills we are planning to remind PCTs to meet once a month and will follow up with them 3 and 6 months post intervention to evaluate their continued development. This spring we will enroll a 2nd cohort. We believe developing these core teamwork skills will lead to more collaborative, efficient, and innovative research