Faculty Bibliography

Background: Dietary protein serves a pivotal role in providing the body with essential amino acids, which are required for the maintenance of body proteins, and the assimilation of structural and functional components required for basic survival. Understanding how dietary protein sources potentially vary for different population subgroups will allow for future nutrition interventions to be more targeted for specific needs. Objective: The purpose of this analysis was to identify the top ten food category sources of dietary protein by age and race and ethnicity in a nationally representative sample. Methods: Cross-sectional data on adults (18+ years) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2016 with one 24-h dietary recall were analyzed (n = 15,697). Population proportions were calculated based on protein intake (g/day) for What We Eat In America food categories. Results: The analytic sample (n = 15,697) was 15.0% Hispanic (95% CI [12.1, 17.9], 65.0% non-Hispanic White (95% CI [60.8, 69.3]), 11.5% non-Hispanic Black (95% CI [9.1, 13.9]), 5.4% non-Hispanic Asian (95% CI [4.3, 6.6]), and 3.1% other (95% CI [2.5, 3.6]). In all racial and ethnic groups, as well as age categories, chicken (whole pieces) was the top-ranked source of dietary protein. In addition to chicken (whole pieces), beef (excludes ground), eggs and omelets, and meat mixed dishes food categories ranked in the top ten sources of protein for every race/ethnicity. Only two solely plant-based proteins appeared in the top ten sources: beans, peas and legumes for Hispanics, and nuts and seeds for Other. For all age categories, beef (excludes ground) was among the top five sources and egg/omelets appear in the top ten sources. Conclusion: The top ten sources of protein accounted for over 40% of dietary protein irrespective of race/ethnicity or age category, having major implications for the sustainability of our nation's food supply. Public health strategies that encourage diversity in protein sources in food preparation and incorporate legumes and nuts along with poultry have the potential to shift the overall population protein intake distribution toward improving overall diet quality.

Intro/Background: Opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits continue to rise at an alarming rate with 5% annual mortality observed among overdose survivors. Mortality was 60% lower among those receiving pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the subsequent year; however, only 1/3 did. Despite D'Onofrio's landmark study demonstrating that initiating buprenorphine and referral in the ED for treatment for OUD is feasible, highly effective, and cost-effective, this life-saving medication is rarely initiated in EDs. Purpose/Objective: Barriers to treatment exist at the patient, provider, and systems levels and include longstanding practice norms, limited experience using medications whose properties are often misunderstood, and the impact stigma has on patients seeking and providers offering treatment. We developed and piloted an experiential education session to mitigate these barriers and increase the likelihood that emergency providers will initiate buprenorphine for patients with OUD in the ED.
Method(s): We created a three case Group Objective Structured Clinical Examination (GOSCE) using standardized patients (SPs) trained to portray three commonly encountered patients with OUD. One participant interacts with one SP (8-10 minutes) while two other participants observe with a faculty member, followed by a 20 minute debrief. Participants are tasked to: a) Assess for ED-initiated buprenorphine and b) Discuss the patients' substance use; provide counseling and education where appropriate. Participants completed pre/post-GOSCE surveys. Outcomes (if available): Thirty-nine emergency medicine providers completed the GOSCE. Prior to the session, 50% had never administered buprenorphine to any patient, 35% in 1-2 patients, and 14% in 3 or more patients. Participants reported an increase in comfort administering buprenorphine comparing pre- and post OSCE surveys; 3.81 to 8.03 respectively (1 = not comfortable, 10 = very comfortable), p<0.001. Reported comfort discussing substance use disorders trended positively from 6.94 to 8.29 without achieving statistical significance.
Summary: It is paramount that emergency medicine providers use all available tools and skills to address the current opioid epidemic. Despite evidence of the benefit of buprenorphine, it remains severely underutilized in the ED. Nationally only 0.9% of emergency physicians are X-waivered to prescribe buprenorphine. In our cohort, 50% had never administered buprenorphine to any ED patient. The primary goal of this experiential education session was to increase the likelihood that emergency providers will administer and initiate BUP treatment for patients with OUD in the ED. The three unique cases provided an intense simulated experience each with challenges often faced in the ED. Case 1: 28 year old man who is anxious to leave the ED after emerging from an opioid overdose after treatment with intranasal naloxone by EMS; Case 2: 35 year old man requesting detox admission from "Oxy"; Case 3: 24 year old woman who is requesting/demanding opioid pain medication after drainage of an abscess resulting from injection drug use. The structured debrief focused on enhancing emergency providers' ability to properly screen and treat patients with buprenorphine as well as improving communication skills discussing OUD. Our results demonstrated that the GOSCE effectively increased providers' reported comfort administering buprenorphine. Qualitative data suggests the session helped facilitate the use of non-stigmatizing language when discussing OUD, acquire strategies on how to discuss buprenorphine and OUD, and positively changed perceptions of buprenorphine & OUD. Participants also found it useful to have difficult patient conversations in the simulation followed by immediate constructive feedback in the debrief. Future study includes examining performance of participants rated by SPs, assessing self-reported comfort and rates of buprenorphine initiation among trainees at six months following the GOSCE. Also, we will track global and individual provider rates of buprenorphine administration and prescribing in our EDs through electronic health record abstraction

Intro/Background: Virtual Urgent Care (VUC) is now a common modality for providing real-time assessment and treatment of common low acuity medical problems. However, most physicians have not had formal telemedicine training or clinical experience and therefore lack proficiency with this new modality of healthcare delivery. We created an experiential onboarding program deploying standardized patients (SPs) into a VUC platform to assess and deliver feedback to physicians, providing individual-level quality assurance and identifying program-level areas for improvement. Purpose/Objective: The objective of this program was to create an experiential training module for physicians as part of their VUC onboarding process with the goal of quality assurance and patient safety. The onboarding experience incorporated common standards for doctor-patient communication as well as the unique skills necessary for the practice of telemedicine. The encounters were unobserved by other faculty, providing participants with a safe and confidential environment to receive feedback on their communication and telemedicine skills.
Method(s): We simulated a synchronous urgent care evaluation of a 25-year-old man with lingering viral upper respiratory tract symptoms refractory to over-thecounter medications. SP training included strongly requesting an antibiotic prescription. A mock electronic medical record encounter provided physicians with demographic and prior medical history. The announced SP appointment occurred during a routine VUC shift. Our behaviorally-anchored assessment tool evaluated communication, case-specific, and telemedicine-specific skills. Response options comprised 'not done,' 'partly done,' and 'well done.' Outcomes (if available): Twenty-one physicians provided appropriate management without prescribing antibiotics. Physicians performed 'well done' in Information Gathering (93%) and Relationship Development (99%) domains. In contrast, Education and Counseling skills were less strong (32% 'well done'); few received 'well done' for checking understanding (14%); conveying and summarizing information (9%). Telemedicine skills were infrequently used: 19% performed virtual physical exam, 24% utilized audio/video interface to augment information gathering, 14% assessed sound, video or ensured backup plan should video fail.
Summary: This experiential virtual urgent care onboarding program utilizing standardized patient announced encounters uncovers several areas for improvement within telemedicine-specific and patient education domains. Participating VUC physicians had 2 to 23 years of clinical experience. Results illustrate that irrespective of experience, telemedicine visits create a unique set of challenges to the traditional way physicians are taught to engage with their patients. Overall, the onboarding exercise was well received by participating physicians. At the conclusion of the visit, SPs provided immediate verbal feedback to urgent care physicians, who received a summary report and had an opportunity provide structured feedback regarding the case. A subset of urgent care physicians (n=9) provided feedback regarding the case; 100% 'somewhat or strongly agreed' that the encounter improved their confidence communicating via the video interface and helped improve telehealth skills. Our innovative onboarding program utilizing highly trained standardized patients can uncover potential gaps in telemedicinespecific skills and form the basis for dedicated training for virtual urgent care physicians to assure quality and patient safety

Objectives While the need to address patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, less is known about physicians' actual clinical problem-solving when it comes to SDoH. Do physicians include SDoH in their assessment strategy? Are SDoH incorporated into their diagnostic thinking and if so, do they document as part of their clinical reasoning? And do physicians directly address SDoH in their "solution" (treatment plan)? Methods We used Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) to assess internal medicine residents' clinical problem solving in response to a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her moldy apartment is contributing to symptoms - a case designed to represent a clear and direct link between a social determinant and patient health. Residents' clinical practices were assessed through a post-visit checklist and systematic chart review. Patterns of clinical problem solving were identified and then explored, in depth, through review of USP comments and history of present illness (HPI) and treatment plan documentation. Results Residents fell into three groups when it came to clinical problem-solving around a housing trigger for asthma: those who failed to ask about housing and therefore did not uncover mold as a potential trigger (neglectors - 21%; 14/68); those who asked about housing in negative ways that prevented disclosure and response (negative elicitors - 24%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors - 56%; 28/68). Of the full elicitors 53% took no further action, 26% only documented the mold; and 21% provided resources/referral. In-depth review of USP comments/explanations and residents' notes (HPI, treatment plan) revealed possible influences on clinical problem solving. Failure to ask about housing was associated with both contextual factors (rushed visit) and interpersonal skills (not fully engaging with patient) and with possible differences in attention ("known" vs. unknown/new triggers, usual symptoms vs. changes, not attending to relocation, etc.,). Use of close-ended questions often made it difficult for the patient to share mold concerns. Negative responses to sharing of housing information led to missing mold entirely or to the patient not realizing that the physician agreed with her concerns about mold. Residents who fully elicited the mold situation but did not take action seemed to either lack knowledge or feel that action on SDoH was outside their realm of responsibility. Those that took direct action to help the patient address mold appeared to be motivated by an enhanced sense of urgency. Conclusions Findings provide unique insight into residents' problem solving processes including external influences (e.g., time, distractions), the role of core communication and interpersonal skills (eliciting information, creating opportunities for patients to voice concerns, sharing clinical thinking with patients), how traditional cognitive biases operate in practice (premature closure, tunneling, and ascertainment bias), and the ways in which beliefs about expectancies and scope of practice may color clinical problem-solving strategies for addressing SDoH.

OBJECTIVE:To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS:We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System (VANYHHS) from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VHANYHHS before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS:57% (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a CPRS-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer.