Implementing an Experiential Telehealth Training and Needs Assessment for Residents and Faculty at a Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinic.

Background: The transition to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed a lack of preexisting telehealth training for clinicians. As a workplace-based simulation methodology designed to improve virtual clinical skills, announced standardized patients (ASPs) may help meet evolving educational needs to sustain quality telehealth care. Objective: We describe the development and implementation of an ASP program to assess and provide feedback to resident and faculty clinicians in virtual practice, and report on performance, feasibility, and acceptability. Methods: From June 2021 to April 2022, resident and faculty clinicians at a VA primary care clinic participated in a video visit in which an ASP portrayed either a 70-year-old man with hearing loss and hypertension or a 60-year-old man with hypertension and financial stress. Following the visit, ASPs provided verbal feedback and completed a behaviorally anchored checklist to rate telehealth and communication skills, chronic disease management, and use of resources. Domain summary scores were calculated as the mean percentage of "well done" items. Participants completed a feedback survey on their experience. Results: Seventy-six televisits (60 primary care residents [postgraduate year 1-3], 16 internal medicine faculty) were conducted from August 2021 to April 2022. Clinicians performed well in communication skills: information gathering (79%, 60 of 76, well done), relationship development (67%, 51 of 76), education and counseling (71%, 54 of 76), and patient satisfaction (86%, 65 of 76). They performed less well in telemedicine skills (38%, 29 of 76). Participants agreed that the experience was a good use of their time (88%, 67 of 76). Conclusions: An ASP-facilitated training for resident and faculty clinicians assessed telehealth skills and clinical practice and identified areas for intervention. Clinicians responded well to the training and feedback.

Design and comparison of a hybrid to a traditional in-person point-of-care ultrasound course.

BACKGROUND: Traditional introductory point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) courses are resource intensive, typically requiring 2-3 days at a remote site, consisting of lectures and hands-on components. Social distancing requirements resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic led us to create a novel hybrid course curriculum consisting of virtual and in-person components. METHODS: Faculty, chief residents, fellows and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the Department of Medicine were invited to participate in the hybrid curriculum. The course structure included 4 modules of recorded lectures, quizzes, online image interpretation sessions, online case discussions, and hands-on sessions at the bedside of course participant's patients. The components of the course were delivered over approximately 8 months. Those participants who completed a minimum of 3 modules over the year were invited for final assessments. Results from the hybrid curriculum cohort were compared to the year-end data from a prior traditional in-person cohort. RESULTS: Participant knowledge scores were not different between traditional (n = 19) and hybrid (n = 24) groups (81% and 84%, respectively, P = 0.9). There was no change in POCUS skills as measured by the hands-on test from both groups at end-of-course (76% and 76%, respectively, P = 0.93). Confidence ratings were similar across groups from 2.73 traditional to 3.0 hybrid (out of possible 4, P = 0.46). Participants rated the course highly, with an average overall rating of 4.6 out 5. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid virtual and in-person POCUS course was highly rated and as successful as a traditional course in improving learner knowledge, hands-on skill and confidence at 8 months after course initiation. These results support expanding virtual elements of POCUS educational curricula.

Design and evaluation of the I-SCAN faculty POCUS program.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is becoming widely adopted with increasing accessibility of courses. Little is known about the optimal design of the introductory course or longitudinal training programs targeting hospitalists that are critical to success. METHODS: Hospitalists at four academic sites participated in a two-day introductory course and a longitudinal phase comprising clinical POCUS practice, clip uploading with online feedback, hands-on teaching, and monthly ultrasound conferences. Assessments were performed immediately before and after the two-day course and after 1 year. RESULTS: Knowledge increased from baseline to post two-day course (median score 58 and 85%, respectively, p < 0.001) and decreased slightly at 1 year (median score 81%, p = 0.012). After the two-day introductory course, the median score for hands-on image acquisition skills, the principal metric of participant success, was 75%. After 1 year, scores were similar (median score 74%). Confidence increased from baseline to post two-day course (1.5 to 3.1 on a 4 point Likert scale from Not at all confident (1) to Very confident (4), p < 0.001), and remained unchanged after 1 year (2.73). Course elements correlating with a passing score on the final hands-on test included number of clip uploads (r = 0.85, p,0.001), attendance at hands-on sessions (r = 0.7, p = 0.001), and attendance at monthly conferences (r = 0.50, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The I-ScaN POCUS training program increased hospitalist knowledge, skill and confidence with maintained skill and confidence after 1 year. Uploading clips and attending hands-on teaching sessions were most correlative with participant success.

A workshop to train medicine faculty to teach clinical reasoning.

Background Clinical reasoning (CR) is a core competency in medical education. Few studies have examined efforts to train faculty to teach CR and lead CR curricula in medical schools and residencies. In this report, we describe the development and preliminary evaluation of a faculty development workshop to teach CR grounded in CR theory. Methods Twenty-six medicine faculty (nine hospitalists and 17 subspecialists) participated in a workshop that introduced a framework to teach CR using an interactive, case-based didactic followed by role-play exercises. Faculty participated in pre- and post-Group Observed Structured Teaching Exercises (GOSTE), completed retrospective pre-post assessments (RPPs), and made commitment to change statements (CTCs). Results In the post-GOSTE, participants significantly improved in their use of problem representation and illness scripts to teach CR. RPPs revealed that faculty were more confident in their ability and more likely to teach CR using educational strategies grounded in CR educational theory. At 2-month follow-up, 81% of participants reported partially implementing these teaching techniques. Conclusions After participating in this 3-h workshop, faculty demonstrated increased ability to use these teaching techniques and expressed greater confidence and an increased likelihood to teach CR. The majority of faculty reported implementing these newly learned educational strategies into practice.

Panel Management to Improve Smoking and Hypertension Outcomes by VA Primary Care Teams: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Panel Management can expand prevention and chronic illness management beyond the office visit, but there is limited evidence for its effectiveness or guidance on how best to incorporate it into practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test the effectiveness of incorporating panel management into clinical practice by incorporating Panel Management Assistants (PMAs) into primary care teams with and without panel management education. DESIGN: We conducted an 8-month cluster-randomized controlled trial of panel management for improving hypertension and smoking cessation outcomes among veterans. PATRICIPANTS: Twenty primary care teams from the Veterans Affairs New York Harbor were randomized to control, panel management support, or panel management support plus education groups. Teams included 69 clinical staff serving 8,153 hypertensive and/or smoking veterans. INTERVENTIONS: Teams assigned to the intervention groups worked with non-clinical Panel Management Assistants (PMAs) who monitored care gaps and conducted proactive patient outreach, including referrals, mail reminders and motivational interviewing by telephone. MAIN MEASURES: Measurements included mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure, self-reported quit attempts, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescriptions, and referrals to disease management services. KEY RESULTS: Change in mean blood pressure, blood pressure control, and smoking quit rates were similar across study groups. Patients on intervention teams were more likely to receive NRT (OR = 1.4; 95% CI 1.2-1.6) and enroll in the disease management services MOVE! (OR = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.6) and Telehealth (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1) than patients on control teams. CONCLUSIONS: Panel Management support for primary care teams improved process, but not outcome variables among veterans with hypertension and smoking. Incorporating PMAs into teams was feasible and highly valued by the clinical staff, but clinical impact may require a longer intervention.

Developing a toolkit for panel management: improving hypertension and smoking cessation outcomes in primary care at the VA.

BACKGROUND: As primary care practices evolve into medical homes, there is an increasing need for effective models to shift from visit-based to population-based strategies for care. However, most medical teams lack tools and training to manage panels of patients. As part of a study comparing different approaches to panel management at the Manhattan and Brooklyn campuses of the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, we created a toolkit of strategies that non-clinician panel management assistants (PMAs) can use to enhance panel-wide outcomes in smoking cessation and hypertension. METHODS: We created the toolkit using: 1) literature review and consultation with outside experts, 2) key informant interviews with staff identified using snowball sampling, 3) pilot testing for feasibility and acceptability, and 4) further revision based on a survey of primary care providers and nurses. These steps resulted in progressively refined strategies for the PMAs to support the primary care team. RESULTS: Literature review and expert consultation resulted in an extensive list of potentially useful strategies. Key informant interviews and staff surveys identified several areas of need for assistance, including help to manage the most challenging patients, providing care outside of the visit, connecting patients with existing resources, and providing additional patient education. The strategies identified were then grouped into 5 areas - continuous connection to care, education and connection to clinical resources, targeted behavior change counseling, adherence support, and patients with special needs. CONCLUSIONS: Although panel management is a central aspect of patient-centered medical homes, providers and health care systems have little guidance or evidence as to how teams should accomplish this objective. We created a toolkit to help PMAs support the clinical care team for patients with hypertension or tobacco use. This toolkit development process could readily be adapted to other behaviors or conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01677533.

Reason for hospital admission: a pilot study comparing patient statements with chart reports.

Providers and patients bring different understandings of health and disease to their encounters in the hospital setting. The literature to date only infrequently addresses patient and provider concordance on the reported reason for hospitalization, that is, whether they express this reason in similar ways. An agreement or common ground between such understandings can serve as a basis for future communication regarding an illness and its treatment. We interviewed a convenience sample of patients on the medical wards of an urban academic medical center. We asked subjects to state the reason why their doctors admitted them to the hospital, and then compared their statement with the reason in the medical record. We defined concordance on reported reason for hospitalization as agreement between the patient's report and the reason abstracted from the chart. We interviewed and abstracted chart data from a total of 46 subjects. Concordance on reported reason for hospitalization was present in 24 (52%) and discordance in 17 (37%); 5 patients (11%) could not give any reason for their hospitalization. Among the 17 patients whose report was discordant with their chart, 12 (71%) reported a different organ system than was recorded in the chart. A significant proportion of medical inpatients could not state their physicians' reason for admission. In addition, patients who identify a different reason for hospitalization than the chart often give a different organ system altogether. Providers should explore patient understanding of the reason for their hospitalization to facilitate communication and shared decision making.