Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Poor social connection is a risk factor for mortality comparable to smoking or obesity. Expert recommendations encourage clinicians to identify and address isolation, loneliness and absent social support; however, screening and documentation norms remain unstandardised in graduate medical education (GME) social determinants of health (SDOH) curricula. We assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours (KAB) of internal medicine resident physicians in a large, urban, academic medical centre regarding screening for and documenting social connection. METHODS:Between October 2022 and February 2023, a voluntary, anonymous mixed-methods survey was disseminated to assess resident physicians' KAB about social connection as a SDOH. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative responses underwent content analysis. An electronic medical record (EMR) chart review of resident notes corroborated survey data. RESULTS:Sixty-three residents of an eligible 153 responded to the survey (41% participation). Sixty-five per cent reported never receiving formal GME about social connection as a SDOH. Familiarity with validated screening tools was low. Although 51% of respondents reported often/always documenting patients' social support systems, few chart notes explicitly mentioned social contacts. Respondents agreed that physicians are responsible for assessing and documenting social connection and noted key challenges of time constraints, inadequate screening and documentation norms and EMR navigation difficulty. Targeted didactics, EMR improvements and interdisciplinary learning opportunities were identified as potential solutions. CONCLUSIONS:This study identified notable gaps in resident physician KAB to address social connection as a SDOH. Challenges could be addressed with standardised screening and documentation norms and skill development in patient communication and interdisciplinary teamwork.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The goal of this case report is to detail experiences and challenges experienced in the training of Primary Care residents in secondary analysis using All of Us Researcher Workbench. At our large, urban safety net hospital, Primary Care/Internal Medicine residents in their third year undergo a research intensive block, the Research Practicum, where they work as a team to conduct secondary data analysis on a dataset with faculty facilitation. In 2023, this research block focused on use of the All of Us Researcher Workbench for secondary data analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Two groups of 5 residents underwent training to access the All of Us Researcher Workbench, and each group explored available data with a faculty facilitator and generated original research questions. Two blocks of residents successfully completed their research blocks and created original presentations on "social isolation and A1C" levels and "medical discrimination and diabetes management." RESULTS:Departmental faculty were satisfied with the depth of learning and data exploration. In focus groups, some residents noted that for those without interest in performing research, the activity felt extraneous to their career goals, while others were glad for the opportunity to publish. In both blocks, residents highlighted dissatisfaction with the degree to which the All of Us Researcher Workbench was representative of patients they encounter in a large safety net hospital. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Using the All of Us Researcher Workbench provided residents with an opportunity to explore novel questions in a massive data source. Many residents however noted that because the population described in the All of Us Researcher Workbench appeared to be more highly educated and less racially diverse than patients they encounter in their practice, research may be hard to generalize in a community health context. Additionally, given that the data required knowledge of 1 of 2 code-based data analysis languages (R or Python) and work within an idiosyncratic coding environment, residents were heavily reliant on a faculty facilitator to assist with analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Using the All of Us Researcher Workbench for research training allowed residents to explore novel questions and gain first-hand exposure to opportunities and challenges in secondary data analysis.

Although housing insecurity has clear negative impacts on health, little is known about how it impacts patients' experience of hospitalization. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 22 hospitalized patients experiencing housing insecurity. The following three major themes emerged: 1) adverse social and environmental factors directly contribute to hospitalization, 2) lack of tailored care during hospitalization leaves patients unprepared for discharge, and 3) patients have difficulty recuperating after a hospital stay, leading to the risk of rehospitalization. Within these themes, participants described the roles of extreme physical and psychological hardship, chaotic interpersonal relationships, substance use, and stigma affecting participants' experiences before, during, and following hospitalization. Our results, based directly on the patient experience, suggest a need for hospital systems to invest in universal in-hospital screening for housing insecurity, incorporation of trauma-informed care, and robust partnerships with community organizations. Future research should explore the feasibility and impact of these interventions.