Real-world integration of the protocol for responding to and assessing patients' assets, risks, and experiences tool to assess social determinants of health in the electronic medical record at an academic medical center.

Objective: To describe the real-world deployment of a tool, the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), to assess social determinants of health (SDoH) in an electronic medical record (EMR). Methods: We employed the collection of the PRAPARE tool in the EMR of a large academic health system in the ambulatory clinic and emergency department setting. After integration, we evaluated SDoH prevalence, levels of missingness, and data anomalies to inform ongoing collection. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics and hand-reviewed data text fields and patterns in the data. Data on patients who were administered with the PRAPARE from February to December 2020 were extracted from the EMR. Patients missing ≥ 12 PRAPARE questions were excluded. Social risks were screened using the PRAPARE. Information on demographics, admittance status, and health coverage were extracted from the EMR. Results: Assessments with N = 6531 were completed (mean age 54 years, female (58.6%), 43.8% Black). Missingness ranged from 0.4% (race) to 20.8% (income). Approximately 6% of patients were homeless; 8% reported housing insecurity; 1.4% reported food needs; 14.6% had healthcare needs; 8.4% needed utility assistance; and 5% lacked transportation related to medical care. Emergency department patients reported significantly higher proportions of suboptimal SDoH. Conclusions: Integrating the PRAPARE assessment in the EMR provides valuable information on SDoH amenable to intervention, and strategies are needed to increase accurate data collection and to improve the use of data in the clinical encounter.

Impact of Virtual Interviewing on Geographic Placement for Cardiology Fellowship Recruitment.

Background Virtual interviewing for cardiology fellowship was instituted in the 2021 fellowship application cycle because of the COVID-19 pandemic and restricted travel. The impact on geographic patterns of fellow-training program matching is unknown. This study sought to determine if there was a difference in geographic placement of matched fellows for cardiology fellowship match after initiation of virtual interviews compared with in-person interviewing. Methods and Results All US-based accredited cardiovascular disease fellowship programs that participated in the 2019 to 2021 fellowship match cycles and had publicly available data with fellowship and residency training locations and training year were included. Each fellow was categorized based on whether their fellowship and residency programs were in the same institution, same state, same US census region, or different census region. Categories were mutually exclusive. Of 236 eligible programs, 118 (50%) programs were identified, composed of 1787 matched fellows. Compared with the previrtual cohort (n=1178 matched fellows), there was no difference in the geographic placement during the 2021 virtual cycle (n=609 matched fellows) (P=0.19), including the proportion matched at the same program (30.6% versus 31.5%), same state but different program (13% versus 13.8%), same region but different state (24.2% versus 19.7%), or different region (35% versus 33.1%). There was also no difference when stratified by program size or geographic region. Conclusions The use of virtual interviewing in the 2021 cardiology fellowship application cycle showed no significant difference in the geographic placement of matched fellows compared with in-person interviewing. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of virtual interviewing and optimize its use in fellowship recruitment.

What Defines an Honors Student? Survey of Pediatric and Internal Medicine Faculty Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Although considerable emphasis is placed on the attainment of honors in core medical school clerkships, little is known about what student characteristics are used by attending physicians to earn this designation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate what values and characteristics that attending physicians consider important in the evaluation of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine clerkship students for clinical honors designation. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey study was framed around Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies. It was administered at three tertiary care hospitals associated with one large medical school in an urban setting. Teaching ward attendings in Pediatrics and Internal Medicine who evaluated third-year medical students between 2013 and 2016 were surveyed. RESULTS: Overall, Pediatric and Internal Medicine faculty demonstrated close agreement in which competencies were most important in designating clinical honors. Both groups believed that professionalism was the most important factor and that systems-based practice and patient care were among the least important factors. The only competency with a significant difference between the two groups was systems-based practice, with Internal Medicine placing more emphasis on the coordination of patient care and understanding social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: Professionalism, communication skills, and medical knowledge are the most important characteristics when determining clinical honors on Pediatrics and Internal Medicine clerkships.