Advancing Lifestyle Medicine in New York City's Public Health Care System.

Chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States, and much of this burden can be attributed to lifestyle and behavioral risk factors. Lifestyle medicine is an approach to preventing and treating lifestyle-related chronic disease using evidence-based lifestyle modification as a primary modality. NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest municipal public health care system in the United States, is a national pioneer in incorporating lifestyle medicine systemwide. In 2019, a pilot lifestyle medicine program was launched at NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue to improve cardiometabolic health in high-risk patients through intensive support for evidence-based lifestyle changes. Analyses of program data collected from January 29, 2019 to February 26, 2020 demonstrated feasibility, high demand for services, high patient satisfaction, and clinically and statistically significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors. This pilot is being expanded to 6 new NYC Health + Hospitals sites spanning all 5 NYC boroughs. As part of the expansion, many changes have been implemented to enhance the original pilot model, scale services effectively, and generate more interest and incentives in lifestyle medicine for staff and patients across the health care system, including a plant-based default meal program for inpatients. This narrative review describes the pilot model and outcomes, the expansion process, and lessons learned to serve as a guide for other health systems.

An intervention connecting low-acuity emergency department patients with primary care: effect on future primary care linkage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to determine whether a point-of-care intervention that navigates willing, low-acuity patients from the emergency department (ED) to a Primary Care Clinic will increase future primary care follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental trial at an urban safety net hospital. Adults presenting to the ED for select low-acuity problems were eligible. Patients were excluded if arriving by emergency medical services, if febrile, or if the triage nurse believed they required ED care. We enrolled 965 patients. Navigators escorted a subset of willing participants to the Primary Care Clinic (in the same hospital complex), where they were assigned a personal physician, were given an overview of clinic services, and received same-day clinic care. The primary outcome was Primary Care Clinic follow-up within 1 year of the index ED visit among patients having no previous primary care provider. RESULTS: In the bivariate intention-to-treat analysis, 50.3% of intervention group patients versus 36.9% of control group patients with no previous primary care provider had at least 1 Primary Care Clinic follow-up visit in the year after the intervention. In the multivariable analysis, the absolute difference in having at least 1 Primary Care Clinic follow-up for the intervention group compared with the control group was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 2.2% to 16.3%). There was no significant difference in the number of future ED visits. CONCLUSION: A point-of-care intervention offering low-acuity ED patients the opportunity to alternatively be treated at the hospital's Primary Care Clinic resulted in increased future primary care follow-up compared with standard ED referral practices.

Understanding the Relationship Between Antiviral Prescription Data and COVID-19 Incidence in New York City: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused more than 675 million confirmed cases and nearly 7 million deaths worldwide [1]. While testing for COVID-19 was initially centered in health care facilities, with required reporting to health departments, it is increasingly being performed in the home with rapid antigen testing [2]. Most at-home tests are self-interpreted and not reported to a provider or health department, which could lead to delayed reporting or underreporting of cases [3]. As such, there is a strong possibility that reported cases may become a less reliable indicator of transmission over time.

Comparison of Primary Care Patients' and Unannounced Standardized Patients' Perceptions of Care.

The objective of this study was to compare unannounced standardized patient (USP) and patient reports of care. Patient satisfaction surveys and USP checklist results collected at an urban, public hospital were compared to identify items included in both surveys. Qualitative commentary was reviewed to better understand USP and patient satisfaction survey data. Analyses included χ2 and Mann-Whitney U test. Patients provided significantly higher ratings on 10 of the 11 items when compared to USPs. USPs may provide a more objective perspective on a clinical encounter than a real patient, reinforcing the notion that real patients skew overly positive or negative.

Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives for weight management may increase use of evidence-based strategies while addressing obesity-related economic disparities in low-income populations. Objective: To examine the effects of 2 financial incentive strategies developed using behavioral economic theory when added to provision of weight management resources. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-group, randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2017 to May 2021 at 3 hospital-based clinics in New York City, New York, and Los Angeles, California. A total of 1280 adults with obesity living in low-income neighborhoods were invited to participate, and 668 were enrolled. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to goal-directed incentives, outcome-based incentives, or a resources-only group. The resources-only group participants were given a 1-year commercial weight-loss program membership, self-monitoring tools (digital scale, food journal, and physical activity monitor), health education, and monthly one-on-one check-in visits. The goal-directed group included resources and linked financial incentives to evidence-based weight-loss behaviors. The outcome-based arm included resources and linked financial incentives to percentage of weight loss. Participants in the incentive groups could earn up to $750. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients achieving 5% or greater weight loss at 6 months. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 668 participants enrolled was 47.7 (12.4) years; 541 (81.0%) were women, 485 (72.6%) were Hispanic, and 99 (14.8%) were Black. The mean (SD) weight at enrollment was 98.96 (20.54) kg, and the mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 37.95 (6.55). At 6 months, the adjusted proportion of patients who lost at least 5% of baseline weight was 22.1% in the resources-only group, 39.0% in the goal-directed group, and 49.1% in the outcome-based incentive group (difference, 10.08 percentage points [95% CI, 1.31-18.85] for outcome based vs goal directed; difference, 27.03 percentage points [95% CI, 18.20-35.86] and 16.95 percentage points [95% CI, 8.18-25.72] for outcome based or goal directed vs resources only, respectively). However, mean percentage of weight loss was similar in the incentive arms. Mean earned incentives was $440.44 in the goal-directed group and $303.56 in the outcome-based group, but incentives did not improve financial well-being. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, outcome-based and goal-directed financial incentives were similarly effective, and both strategies were more effective than providing resources only for clinically significant weight loss in low-income populations with obesity. Future studies should evaluate cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03157713.

A Phone Call Away: New York's Hotline And Public Health In The Rapidly Changing COVID-19 Pandemic.

In early March 2020 an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in New York City exerted sudden and extreme pressures on emergency medical services and quickly changed public health policy and clinical guidance. Recognizing this, New York City Health + Hospitals established a clinician-staffed COVID-19 hotline for all New Yorkers. The hotline underwent three phases as the health crisis evolved. As of May 1, 2020, the hotline had received more than ninety thousand calls and was staffed by more than a thousand unique clinicians. Hotline clinicians provided callers with clinical assessment and guidance, registered them for home symptom monitoring, connected them to social services, and provided a source of up-to-date answers to COVID-19 questions. By connecting New Yorkers with hotline clinicians, regardless of their regular avenues of accessing care, the hotline aimed to ease the pressures on the city's overtaxed emergency medical services. Future consideration should be given to promoting easy access to clinician hotlines by disadvantaged communities early in a public health crisis and to evaluating the impact of clinician hotlines on clinical outcomes.

Low Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Persistent Disparities in an Underserved Urban Population.

Colorectal cancer screening has increased substantially in New York City in recent years. However, screening uptake measured by telephone surveys may not fully capture rates among underserved populations. We measured screening completion within 1 year of a primary care visit among previously unscreened patients in a large urban safety-net hospital and identified sociodemographic and health-related predictors of screening.We identified 21,256 patients ages 50 to 75 who were seen by primary care providers (PCP) in 2014, of whom 14,425 (67.9%) were not up-to-date with screening. Because PCPs facilitate the majority of screening, we compared patients who received screening within 1 year of an initial PCP visit to those who remained unscreened using multivariable logistic regression.Among patients not up-to-date with screening at study outset, 11.5% (1,658 patients) completed screening within 1 year of a PCP visit. Asian race, more PCP visits, and higher area-level income were associated with higher screening completion. Factors associated with remaining unscreened included morbid obesity, ever smoking, Elixhauser comorbidity index of 0, and having Medicaid/Medicare insurance. Age, sex, language, and travel time to the hospital were not associated with screening status. Overall, 39.9% of patients were up-to-date with screening by 2015.In an underserved urban population, colorectal cancer screening disparities remain, and overall screening uptake was low. Because more PCP visits were associated with modestly higher screening completion at 1 year, additional community-level education and outreach may be crucial to increase colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations.

Staffing Up For The Surge: Expanding The New York City Public Hospital Workforce During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Confronted with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, New York City Health + Hospitals, the city's public health care system, rapidly expanded capacity across its eleven acute care hospitals and three new field hospitals. To meet the unprecedented demand for patient care, NYC Health + Hospitals redeployed staff to the areas of greatest need and redesigned recruiting, onboarding, and training processes. The hospital system engaged private staffing agencies, partnered with the Department of Defense, and recruited volunteers throughout the country. A centralized onboarding team created a single-source portal for medical care providers requiring credentialing and established new staff positions to increase efficiency. Using new educational tools focused on COVID-19 content, the hospital system trained twenty thousand staff members, including nearly nine thousand nurses, within a two-month period. Creation of multidisciplinary teams, frequent enterprisewide communication, willingness to shift direction in response to changing needs, and innovative use of technology were the key factors that enabled the hospital system to meet its goals.

Staying Connected In The COVID-19 Pandemic: Telehealth At The Largest Safety-Net System In The United States.

New York City Health + Hospitals is the largest safety-net health care delivery system in the United States. Before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, NYC Health + Hospitals served more than one million patients annually, including the most vulnerable New Yorkers, while billing fewer than five hundred telehealth visits monthly. Once the pandemic struck, we established a strategy to allow us to continue to serve our existing patients while treating the surge of new patients. Starting in March 2020, we were able to transform the system using virtual care platforms through which we conducted almost eighty-three thousand billable televisits in one month, as well as more than thirty thousand behavioral health encounters via telephone and video. Telehealth also enabled us to support patient-family communication, postdischarge follow-up, and palliative care for patients with COVID-19. Expanded Medicaid coverage and insurance reimbursement for telehealth played a pivotal role in this transformation. As we move to a new blend of virtual and in-person care, it is vital that the major regulatory and insurance changes undergirding our COVID-19 telehealth response be sustained to protect access for our most vulnerable patients.

Clinical problem solving and social determinants of health: a descriptive study using unannounced standardized patients to directly observe how resident physicians respond to social determinants of health.

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 ­ 23%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors ­ 56%; 38/68) [corrected]. 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.