Validity evidence for the clinical communication skills assessment tool (CCSAT) from 9 years of implementation in a high stakes medical student OSCE.

OBJECTIVES: Communication and other clinical skills are routinely assessed in medical schools using Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) so routinely that it can be difficult to monitor and maintain validity. We report on the accumulation of validity evidence for the Clinical Communication Skills Assessment Tool (CCSAT) based on its use with 9 cohorts of medical students in a high stakes OSCE. METHODS: We describe the implementation of the CCSAT including information on the underlying model, the tool's items, domains, scales and scoring, and its role in curriculum. Internal structure is explored through item, internal consistency, and confirmatory factor analyses. Evidence for CCSAT validity is synthesized within prevailing frameworks (Messick12 and Kane13) based on continuous quality improvement and use of the CCSAT for feedback, remediation, curricular design, and research. RESULTS: Implementation of the CCSAT over time has facilitated our communication skills curriculum and training. Thoughtful case development and investment in standardized patient training has contributed to data quality. Item analysis supports our behaviorally anchored scale (not done, partly and well done) and the skills domains suggested by an a priori evidence-based clinical communication model were confirmed via analysis of actual student data. Evidence synthesized across the frameworks suggests consistent validity of the CCSAT for generalization inferences (that it captures the construct), responsiveness (sensitivity to change/difference), content validity/internal structure, relationships to other variables, and consequences/implications. More evidence is needed to strengthen validity of CCSAT scores for understanding extrapolation inferences and real-world implications. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This pragmatic approach to evaluating validity within a program of assessment serves as a model for medical schools seeking to continuously monitor the quality of clinical skill assessments, a need made particularly relevant since the US NBME no longer requires the Step 2 Clinical Skills exam, leaving individual schools with the responsibility for ensuring graduates have acquired the requisite core clinical skills. We document strong evidence for CCSAT validity over time and across cohorts as well as areas for improvement and further examination.

Using Unannounced Standardized Patients to Assess Clinician Telehealth and Communication Skills at an Urban Student Health Center.

PURPOSE: As the COVID-19 pandemic forced most colleges and universities to go online, student health centers rapidly shifted to telehealth platforms without frameworks for virtual care provision. An urban student health center implemented a needs assessment involving unannounced standardized patients (USPs) to evaluate the integration of a new telehealth workflow and clinicians' virtual communication skills. METHODS: From April to May 2021, USPs conducted two video visits with 12 primary care and four women's health clinicians (N = 16 clinicians; 32 visits). Cases included (1) a 21-year-old female presenting for birth control with a positive Patient Health Questionaire-9 and (2) a 21-year-old male, who vapes regularly, with questions regarding safe sex with men. Clinicians were evaluated using a checklist completed by the USP immediately following the visit and a systematic chart review of the electronic health record. RESULTS: USP feedback indicates most clinicians received high ratings for general communication skills but may benefit from educational intervention in several key telemedicine skills. Clinicians struggled with using nonverbal signals to enrich communication (47% well done), acknowledging emotions (34% well done), and using video for information gathering (34% well done). Low rates of standard screenings (e.g., 63% administered the PHQ-2, <50% asked about alcohol use) suggested protocols for in-person care were not easily incorporated into telehealth practices, and clinicians may benefit from enhanced care team support. Performance reports were shared with clinicians and leadership postvisit. DISCUSSION: Results suggest project design and implementation is scalable and feasible for use at other institutions, offering a structured methodology that can improve general student health care.

Understanding medical student paths to communication skills expertise using latent profile analysis.

PURPOSE: To describe patterns of clinical communication skills that inform curriculum enhancement and guide coaching of medical students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Performance data from 1182 consenting third year medical students in 9 cohorts (2011-2019), on a 17-item Clinical Communication Skills Assessment Tool (CCSAT) completed by trained Standardized Patients as part of an eight case high stakes Comprehensive Clinical Skills Exam (CCSE) were analyzed using latent profile analysis (LPA). Assessment domains included: information gathering (6 items), relationship development (5 items), patient education (3 items), and organization/time management (3 items). LPA clustered learners with similar strength/weakness into profiles based on item response patterns across cases. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed for significant differences by profile for CCSAT items. RESULTS: Student performance clustered into six profiles in three groups, high performing (HP1 and HP2-Low Patient Education, 15.7%), average performing (AP1 and AP2-Interrupters, 40.9%), and lower performing profiles (LP1-Non-interrupters and LP2, 43.4%) with adequate model fit estimations and similar distribution in each cohort. We identified 3 CCSAT items that discriminated among learner's skill profiles. CONCLUSION: Clinical communication skill performance profiles provide nuanced, benchmarked guidance for curriculum improvement and tailoring of communication skills coaching.

Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs.

BACKGROUND: Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs. METHODS: Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams. RESULTS: 108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.

Gasping for air: measuring patient education and activation skillsets in two clinical assessment contexts.

Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provide a controlled, simulated setting for competency assessments, while unannounced simulated patients (USPs) measure competency in situ or real-world settings. This exploratory study describes differences in primary care residents' skills when caring for the same simulated patient case in OSCEs versus in a USP encounter. Data reported describe a group of residents (n=20) who were assessed following interaction with the same simulated patient case in two distinct settings: an OSCE and a USP visit at our safety-net clinic from 2009 to 2010. In both scenarios, the simulated patient presented as an asthmatic woman with limited understanding of illness management. Residents were rated through a behaviourally anchored checklist on visit completion. Summary scores (mean % well done) were calculated by domain and compared using paired sample t-tests. Residents performed significantly better with USPs on 7 of 10 items and in two of three aggregate assessment domains (p<0.05). OSCE structure may impede assessment of activation and treatment planning skills, which are better assessed in real-world settings. This exploration of outcomes from our two assessments using the same clinical case lays a foundation for future research on variation in situated performance. Using both assessments during residency will provide a more thorough understanding of learner competency.

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.

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.