No abstract

Introduction: Health care systems rose to the challenges of COVID-19 by creating or expanding telehealth programs to ensure that patients could access care without an in-person appointment. Traditionally, physicians receive limited formal telemedicine training, making preparedness for this transition uneven. To describe challenges to and attitudes toward providing virtual patient care, we distributed a survey to physicians within our system who largely had no formal prior training/experience with telemedicine, but transitioned to routine telemedicine use. Data collected are then used to offer actionable recommendations for health system leaders and medical educators. Materials and Methods: Surveys were distributed to all faculty outpatient general internal medicine physicians working at any New York University Langone Health, New York City Health + Hospitals/Bellevue and Gouverneur, and the VA NY Harbor Health System (n = 378) in mid-2020. Survey items consisted of Likert and open-ended questions related to experience with televisits (13 items) and attitudes toward care (24 items). Results: Telehealth-related challenges varied by site and modality. Primary challenges included establishing a connection from the patient's (98%) or physician's end (84%) and difficulty in the following domains: working with team members (39%), physical examinations (95%), establishing new patient relationships (70%), and taking history (40%), among others. In thematic analysis, significant themes with illustrative qualitative commentary emerged related to technological challenges, new systems issues, and new patient/ physician communication experiences.Discussion: Experience differences were rooted in the type of technology employed. Safety-net practices conducted mostly telephonic visits, whereas private outpatient sites utilized video, despite both using identical electronic medical records. As we consider a ''new normal'' and prolonged community transmission of COVID-19 infection, it is essential to establish telemedicine training, tools, and protocols that meet the needs of both patients and physicians.

No abstract

Standardized patients (SPs) are a widely used, valid, and reliable means of teaching and evaluating healthcare providers (HCPs) across all levels of training and across multiple domains of both clinical and communication skills. Most research on SP programs focuses on outcomes pertinent to the learners (i.e., HCPs) rather than how this experience affects the SPs themselves. This review seeks to summarize the current literature on the risks and benefits of being an SP. We reviewed the literature on the effects that simulation has on adults, children/adolescents, and medical professionals who serve as SPs, in addition to real patients (RPs) who are involved in teaching by sharing their medical histories and experiences. To collect the literature, we conducted two separate systematic searches: one for SPs and one for RPs. Following the searches, we applied standardized eligibility criteria to narrow the literature down to articles within the scope of this review. A total of 67 studies were included that focused on the outcomes of SPs or RPs. The benefits for those portraying SP roles include improved health knowledge and attitudes, relationships with their HCPs, and changed health behaviors. Negative effects of being an SP include anxiety, exhaustion/fatigue, and physical discomfort immediately following a simulation, but the literature to date appears to indicate that there are no long-lasting effects. These findings are consistent across age groups and the type of role being simulated. They are also supported by studies of RPs who are involved in medical education. Overall, the benefits of being an SP appear to outweigh the known risks. However, there are significant limitations in the current literature, and additional studies are needed to better characterize the SP experience.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential for quality care. Understanding residents' level of competence is a critical first step to designing targeted curricula and workplace learning activities. In this needs assessment, we measured residents' IPC competence using specifically designed Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) cases and surveyed residents regarding training needs. METHODS: We developed three cases to capture IPC competence in the context of physician-nurse collaboration. A trained actor played the role of the nurse (Standardized Nurse -SN). The Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) framework was used to create a ten-item behaviorally anchored IPC performance checklist (scored on a three-point scale: done, partially done, well done) measuring four generic domains: values/ethics; roles/responsibilities; interprofessional communication; and teamwork. Specific skills required for each scenario were also assessed, including teamwork communication (SBAR and CUS) and patient-care-focused tasks. In addition to evaluating IPC skills, the SN assessed communication, history-taking and physical exam skills. IPC scores were computed as percent of items rated well done in each domain (Cronbach's alpha > 0.77). Analyses include item frequencies, comparison of mean domain scores, correlation between IPC and other skills, and content analysis of SN comments and resident training needs. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-eight residents (of 199 total) completed an IPC case and results are reported for the 162 who participated in our medical education research registry. IPC domain scores were: Roles/ responsibilities mean = 37 % well done (SD 37 %); Values/ethics mean = 49 % (SD 40 %); Interprofessional communication mean = 27 % (SD 36 %); Teamwork mean = 47 % (SD 29 %). IPC was not significantly correlated with other core clinical skills. SNs' comments focused on respect and IPC as a distinct skill set. Residents described needs for greater clarification of roles and more workplace-based opportunities structured to support interprofessional education/learning. CONCLUSIONS: The IPC cases and competence checklist are a practical method for conducting needs assessments and evaluating IPC training/curriculum that provides rich and actionable data at both the individual and program levels.