Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Suboptimal support for colleagues experiencing discrimination can adversely impact clinician well-being and patient care. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To describe resident performance and experience during an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) case centered on supporting a trainee facing discrimination to inform enhanced, supportive learning environments. SETTING/METHODS:Formative, internal medicine OSCE at a simulation center. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:148 second-year residents across 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/METHODS:Residents had 10 min to support a Muslim standardized intern (SI) experiencing discrimination from a patient. The SI rated resident performance across Supervision, Relationship Development, and Support domains and provided written feedback. Post-OSCE evaluations elicited resident reflections on case challenges. PROGRAM EVALUATION/RESULTS:Proficient residents (≥ 80% average score across domains, n = 85) performed better in all items, except in not acting defensive and collaborating with SI to develop follow-up plan, compared to non-proficient residents (n = 65). The SI described effective approaches to feeling supported, including using empathetic statements, stating personal stance on discrimination, exhibiting supportive body language, and verbalizing support. Stating knowledge of situation upfront was an area of improvement. Residents found engaging the distressed SI difficult. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Use of an explicit discrimination OSCE case can help identify effective approaches to supporting targets of discriminatory patients to inform future training.

BACKGROUND:Coaching has been proposed to support the transition to residency. Clarifying its impact will help define its value and best use. OBJECTIVE:To explore the experiences of residents working with coaches through the residency transition. DESIGN/METHODS:A cohort comparison survey compared experiences of a coached resident cohort with coaches to the prior, uncoached cohort. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Post-graduate year (PGY)-2 residents in internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, and pathology at a single academic center. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Faculty trained as coaches had semi-structured meetings with graduating medical students and residents throughout the PGY-1 year. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:An online anonymous survey assessed effects of coaching on measures of self-directed learning, professional development, program support and impact of coaching using existing scales (2-item Maslach Burnout Inventory, Brief Resilient Coping Scale, 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Stanford Professional Fulfillment Inventory), and novel measures adapted for this survey. Bivariate analyses (t-tests and chi-square tests) compared cohort responses. MANOVA assessed the effects of coaching, burnout and their interactions on the survey domains. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Of 156 PGY2 residents, 86 (55%) completed the survey. More residents in the "un-coached" cohort reported burnout (69%) than the "coached" cohort (51%). Burnout was significantly and negatively associated (F = 3.97 (df 7, 75); p < .001) with the learning and professional development outcomes, while being coached was significantly and positively associated with those outcomes (F = 5.54 (df 9, 75); p < .001). Significant interaction effects were found for goal-setting attitudes, professional fulfillment, and perceived program career support such that the positive differences in these outcomes between coached and un-coached residents were greater among burned out residents. Coached residents reported a positive impact of coaching across many domains. CONCLUSIONS:Residents experiencing coaching reported better professional fulfillment and development outcomes, with more pronounced differences in trainees experiencing burnout. Coaching is a promising tool to support a fraught professional transition.

Discrimination toward trainees is a pervasive problem, with surveys showing it is often perpetrated by patients. For several years, residents and faculty in an internal medicine residency have participated in a workshop offering a framework for responding to discriminatory behavior by patients. As part of a larger effort to reinforce this teaching and promote an inclusive environment, the authors pursued a multi-pronged simulation curriculum that could be incorporated into graduate medical education programs across their institution. First, the authors conducted trainee and faculty focus groups to better understand their experiences. Qualitative data was collected, including recommendations for responding to discrimination, characteristics of the most common experiences, and trainees' own ideas for worthwhile simulation scenarios. Trainees and faculty were then brought together in a collaborative process to co-develop simulation cases that were later implemented in curricula across multiple learner levels, specialties, and contexts. Participants in these simulations reported improved comfort in responding to discrimination in the moment and/or in the wake of such incidents. Through trainee-faculty collaboration, the project yielded authentic and impactful simulation experiences for learners, while also giving trainees an opportunity to turn previous trauma into constructive learning opportunities that promote an inclusive environment.

BACKGROUND:Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs. METHODS:Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams. RESULTS:108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams. CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB), a monthly injectable long-acting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, has not been studied for use in corrections facilities. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare treatment retention following release from jail among adults receiving daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SLB) vs those receiving XRB. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This open-label, randomized comparative effectiveness study included 52 incarcerated adults in New York City observed for 8 weeks postrelease between June 2019 and May 2020. Participants were soon-to-be-released volunteers from 1 men's and 1 women's jail facility who had OUDs already treated with SLB. Follow-up treatment was received at a primary care clinic in Manhattan. Data were analyzed between June 2020 and December 2020. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:XRB treatment was offered prior to release and continued monthly through 8 weeks after release. SLB participants continued to receive daily directly observed in-jail SLB administration, were provided a 7-day SLB supply at jail release, and followed up at a designated clinic (or other preferred clinics). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Buprenorphine treatment retention at 8 weeks postrelease. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 52 participants were randomized 1:1 to XRB (26 participants) and SLB (26 participants). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (10.0) years; 45 participants (87%) were men; and 40 (77%) primarily used heroin prior to incarceration. Most participants (30 [58%]) reported prior buprenorphine use; 18 (35%) reported active community buprenorphine treatment prior to jail admission. Twenty-one of 26 assigned to XRB received 1 or more XRB injection prior to release; 3 initiated XRB postrelease; and 2 did not receive XRB. Patients in the XRB arm had fewer jail medical visits compared with daily SLB medication administration (mean [SD] visits per day: XRB, 0.11 [0.03] vs SLB, 1.06 [0.08]). Community buprenorphine treatment retention at week 8 postrelease was 18 participants in the XRB group (69.2%) vs 9 in the SLB group (34.6%), and rates of opioid-negative urine tests were 72 of 130 tests in the XRB group (55.3%) and 50 of 130 tests in the SLB group (38.4%). There were no differences in rates of serious adverse events, no overdoses, and no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:XRB was acceptable among patients currently receiving SLB, and patients had fewer in-jail clinic visits and increased community buprenorphine treatment retention when compared with standard daily SLB treatment. These results support wider use and further study of XRB as correctional and reentry OUD treatment. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03604159.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM OR QUESTION (ONE SENTENCE): In order to describe quality improvement (QI) methods for health systems, we report on 10-years of using Unannounced Standardized Patient (USP) visits as the core of a program of education, training, and improvement in a system serving vulnerable patients in partnership with an academic medical center. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1: Consider methods for supporting learning healthcare systems LEARNING OBJECTIVES 2: Identify performance data to improve care DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (E.G. INPATIENT VS. OUTPATIENT, PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS): The IOM defines a Learning Healthcare System (LHCS) as one in which science, informatics, incentives and culture are aligned for continuous improvement and innovation and where best practices are seamlessly embedded in the delivery process and new knowledge is captured as an integral by-product of the delivery experience. As essential as electronic health records are to LHCS, such data fail to capture all actionable information needed to sustain learning within complex systems. USPs are trained actors who present to clinics, incognito, to portray standardized chief complaints, histories, and characteristics. We designed and delivered USP visits to two urban, safety net clinics, focusing on assessing physician, team, and clinical micro system functioning. MEASURES OF SUCCESS (DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND/OR QUANTITATIVEMETRICSWHICHWILL BE USEDTOEVALUATE PROGRAM/INTERVENTION): Behaviorally anchored assessments are used to assess core clinical skills (e.g., communication, information gathering, patient education, adherence to guidelines, patient centeredness, and patient activation). Team functioning assessments include professionalism and coordination. Micro system assessment focuses on safety issues like identity confirmation, hand washing, and navigation. Data from these visits has been provided to the residency, primary care teams, and to leadership and have been used to drive education, team training, and QI. FINDINGS TO DATE (IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO STATE FINDINGS WILL BE DISCUSSED): 1111 visits have been sent to internal medicine and primary care residents and their teams/clinics. At the resident level, needs for additional education and training in depression management, opioid prescribing, smoking cessation, and patient activation were identified and informed education. Chart reviews found substantial variation in ordering of labs and tests. At the team level, USPs uncovered needs for staff training, enhanced communication, and better processes for eliciting and documenting Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). Audit/feedback reports on provider responses to embedded SDoH combined with targeted education/resources, were associated with increased rates of eliciting and effectively responding to SDoH. In the early COVID wave, USPs tested clinic response to a potentially infectious patient. Currently, USPs are being deployed to understand variability in patients' experience of telemedicine given the rapid transformation to this modality. Finally, generalizable questions about underlying principles of medical education and quality improvement are being asked & answered using USP data to foster deeper understanding of levers for change. KEY LESSONS FOR DISSEMINATION (WHAT CAN OTHERS TAKE AWAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TO THEIR PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY): A comprehensive USP program can provide unique insights for driving QI and innovation and help sustain a LHCS

BACKGROUND: There's been a recent shift toward addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) during the clinical encounter through discussion and documentation. SDoH documentation in the problem list and through billing-related z-code use is necessary for accurate, individual patient and population level tracking andmay improve quality of care.We sought to better understand if/how providers document their patient's SDoH when elicited during a clinical visit.
METHOD(S): Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) were sent to two safety-net clinics to assess how medicine residents care for a new patient presenting with one of six unique chief complaints, and accompanying underlying financial, housing, and social concerns. USPs assessed resident practices after the encounter through a behaviorally anchored checklist and systematic chart review. USPs volunteered financial concerns while housing insecurity and social isolation needed to be elicited by the provider. Checklist items assessed if the USP was able to fully disclose their SDoH to the provider. Provider documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) in one of three spaces: the history of present illness (HPI), the problem list, or through use of a social determinant-specific Zcode was examined when a USP was able to share their concerns.
RESULT(S): 384 USP visits were sent to medical residents from 2017 to 2019. USPs were able to share their financial concerns during 84% of the encounters, but were less likely to be able to share their housing or social concerns with providers (35% and 28%, respectively). Documentation in the HPI and treatment list remained low across cases (<15%) and only one Z-code was used across all visits. On an individual case level, providers addressed housing insecurity most frequently in the asthma case (discussion 65%; documentation: HPI 39%, Plan 16%) and social isolation in the fatigue case (discussion 57%; documentation: HPI 49%, Plan 2%). Providers were least likely to discuss and document SDoH for patients presenting with acute pain.
CONCLUSION(S): In clinical scenarios where SDoH concerns were elicited, residents documented SDoH in less than half of visits. Omission of SDoH not only effects clinical care but also panel management and SDoH population-level estimations. New education strategies are needed to address resident's ability to elicit and accurately document SDoH

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the importance of addressing Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), less is known about how physicians elicit, respond to, and act upon their patients' SDoH information. We report on the results of a study that 1) sent Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) with programmed SDoH into clinics to assess whether providers uncovered, explored and acted upon the SDoH, 2) provided audit/feedback reports with educational components to clinical teams, and 3) tracked the impact of that intervention on provider response to SDoH.
METHOD(S): Highly trained USPs (secret shoppers) portrayed six scenarios (fatigue, asthma, Hepatitis B concern, shoulder pain, back pain, well-visit), each with specific housing (overcrowding, late rent, and mold) and social isolation (shyness, recent break up, and anxiety) concerns that they shared if asked broadly about. USPs assessed team and provider SDoH practices (eliciting, acknowledging/exploring, and providing resources and/or referrals). 383 USP visits were made to residents in 5 primary care teams in 2 urban, safety- net clinics. 123 visits were fielded during baseline period (Feb 2017-Jan 2018); 185 visits during intervention period (Jan 2018-Mar 2019) throughout which quarterly audit/feedback reports of the teams' response to the USPs' SDoH and targeted education on SDoH were distributed; and 75 follow-up phase visits were fielded (Apr-Dec 2019). Analyses compared rates of eliciting and responding to SDoH across the 3 periods (chi- square, z-scores). One team, by design, did not receive the intervention and serves as a comparison group.
RESULT(S): Among the intervention teams, the rate of eliciting the housing SDoH increased from 46% at baseline to 59% during the intervention period (p=.045) and also increased, but not significantly, for the social issue (40% to 52%, p=.077). There was a significant increase from baseline to intervention in providing resources/referrals for housing (from 7% to 24%, p=.001) and for social isolation (from 13% to 24%, p=.042) (mostly resources, very few referrals were made). The comparison team's rates followed a different pattern: eliciting the housing issue and the social isolation issue decreased from baseline to the intervention period (housing: 61% to 45%; social isolation: 39% to 33% of visits) and the rate of providing resources/referrals stayed steady at 13% for both. In the cases where SDoH were most clinically relevant, baseline rates of identifying the SDoH were high (>70%) but rates of acting on the SDoH increased significantly from baseline to intervention. Increases seen in the intervention period were not sustained in the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION(S): Giving providers SDoH data along with targeted education was associated with increased but unsustained rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social issues. The USP methodology was an effective means of presenting controlled SDoH and providing audit/feedback data. Ongoing education and feedback may be needed

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the importance of addressing Social Determinants of Health, less is known about how members of the care team respond to patient-volunteered SDoH - especially when the determinant is related to financial insecurity. With increasing calls for universal screening for SDoH - what do teams do when a patient shares a financial concern? We report on the use of Unannounced Standardized Patients (USP) to assess how primary care teams respond to volunteered information about financial insecurity and whether an audit/ feedback intervention (with targeted education included) improved that response.
METHOD(S): Highly trained USPs (secret shoppers) portrayed six common scenarios (fatigue, asthma, Hepatitis B concern, shoulder pain, back pain, well visit). USPs volunteered a financial concern (fear of losing job, challenges with financially supporting parent, trouble meeting rent) to the medical assistant (MA) and then again to their provider and assessed the response of both the MA (did they acknowledge and/ or forward the information to the provider?) and the provider (did they acknowledge/ explore and/or provide resources/referrals?). A total of 383 USP visits were delivered to 5 care teams in 2 safety-net clinics. Providers were medicine residents. 123 visits were fielded during the baseline period (Feb 2017-Jan 2018); 185 visits during the intervention period (Jan 2018-Mar 2019) throughout which quarterly audit/feedback reports of the teams' response to the USPs' SDoH and targeted education on SDoH were distributed. 75 follow-up phase visits were fielded (Apr- Dec 2019). Analyses compared rates of MA and provider response to the volunteered financial insecurity issue across the 3 periods (chi-square, z-scores).
RESULT(S): The baseline rate of responding in some way to the volunteered information was high for both the MA (86% acknowledged) and the providers (100% responded). These overall rates of response did not change substantially or significantly across the three time periods (MA: Intervention period = 87%, Follow- Up period=90%; Provider: Intervention period=98%; Follow-Up period=98%). Rates of acting upon the volunteered information also remained quite consistent across the time periods: from 29 to 35% of MA forwarded the information to the provider across the 3 time periods and from 22 to 28% of providers in each intervention period gave the patient resources or a referral (mostly resources).
CONCLUSION(S): Our findings highlight the importance of patients directly telling team members about a financial concern. Future research should explore whether screening tools are effective in instigating a response. Audit/feedback reports with targeted educational components did not appear to influence the teams' response unlike what we found for housing and social concerns that had to be elicited. Whether this is due to differences in volunteered vs. elicited SDoH or to the nature of the SDoH (financial vs housing/social) warrants further investigation