Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential for quality care. Understanding residents' level of competence is a critical first step to designing targeted curricula and workplace learning activities. In this needs assessment, we measured residents' IPC competence using specifically designed Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) cases and surveyed residents regarding training needs. METHODS: We developed three cases to capture IPC competence in the context of physician-nurse collaboration. A trained actor played the role of the nurse (Standardized Nurse - SN). The Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) framework was used to create a ten-item behaviorally anchored IPC performance checklist (scored on a three-point scale: done, partially done, well done) measuring four generic domains: values/ethics; roles/responsibilities; interprofessional communication; and teamwork. Specific skills required for each scenario were also assessed, including teamwork communication (SBAR and CUS) and patient-care-focused tasks. In addition to evaluating IPC skills, the SN assessed communication, history-taking and physical exam skills. IPC scores were computed as percent of items rated well done in each domain (Cronbach's alpha > 0.77). Analyses include item frequencies, comparison of mean domain scores, correlation between IPC and other skills, and content analysis of SN comments and resident training needs. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-eight residents (of 199 total) completed an IPC case and results are reported for the 162 who participated in our medical education research registry. IPC domain scores were: Roles/responsibilities mean = 37 % well done (SD 37 %); Values/ethics mean = 49 % (SD 40 %); Interprofessional communication mean = 27 % (SD 36 %); Teamwork mean = 47 % (SD 29 %). IPC was not significantly correlated with other core clinical skills. SNs' comments focused on respect and IPC as a distinct skill set. Residents described needs for greater clarification of roles and more workplace-based opportunities structured to support interprofessional education/learning. CONCLUSIONS: The IPC cases and competence checklist are a practical method for conducting needs assessments and evaluating IPC training/curriculum that provides rich and actionable data at both the individual and program levels.

PROBLEM: Efforts to evaluate and optimize the effectiveness of medical education have been limited by the difficulty of designing medical education research. Longitudinal, epidemiological views of educational outcomes can help overcome limitations, but these approaches require "bigger data"-more learners, sources, and time points. The rich data institutions collect on students and residents can be mined, however, ethical and practical barriers to using these data must first be overcome. APPROACH: In 2008, the authors established the Research on Medical Education Outcomes (ROMEO) Registry, an educational data registry modeled after patient registries. New York University School of Medicine students, residents, and fellows provide consent for routinely collected educational, performance, quality improvement, and clinical practice data to be compiled into a deidentified, longitudinal database. As of January 2015, this registry included 1,225 residents and fellows across 12 programs (71% consent rate) and 841 medical students (86% consent rate). Procedures ensuring voluntary informed consent are essential to ethical enrollment and data use. Substantial resources are required to provide access to and manage the data. OUTCOMES: The registry supports educational scholarship. Seventy-two studies using registry data have been presented or published. These focus on evaluating the curriculum, quality of care, and measurement quality and on assessing needs, competencies, skills development, transfer of skills to practice, remediation patterns, and links between education and patient outcomes. NEXT STEPS: The authors are working to integrate assessment of relevant outcomes into the curriculum, maximize both the quantity and quality of the data, and expand the registry across institutions.

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.