@Article{info:doi/10.2196/66221,
author="Hayer, Rupinder
and Tang, Joyce
and Bisschops, Julia
and Schneider, Gregory W
and Kirley, Kate
and Khan, Tamkeen
and Rieger, Erin
and Walford, Eric
and Anderson, Irsk
and Press, Valerie
and Williams, Brent",
title="Implementing the H{\&}P 360 in Three Medical Institutions: Usability Study",
journal="JMIR Med Educ",
year="2025",
month="Jun",
day="5",
volume="11",
pages="e66221",
keywords="history and physical; medical education; social drivers; social determinants of health",
abstract="Background: The traditional history and physical (H{\&}P) provides the basis for physicians' data gathering, problem formulation, and care planning, yet it can miss relevant behavioral or social risk factors. The American Medical Association's ``H{\&}P 360,'' a modified H{\&}P, has been shown to foster information gathering and patient rapport in inpatient settings and objective structured clinical examinations. It prompts students to explore 7 domains, as appropriate to the clinical context: biomedical problems, psychosocial problems, patients' priorities and goals, behavioral history, relationships, living environment and resources, and functional status. Objective: This study aims to examine the perceived usability of the H{\&}P 360 outside standardized patient settings. Methods: The H{\&}P 360 was implemented in various clinical settings across 3 institutions. Of the 207 student participants, 18 were preclerkship, 126 were clerkship, and 63 were postclerkship; 3-8 months after implementation, we administered a student survey consisting of 14 Likert-type items (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and 3 free-text response items to assess usability. Results: Of the 207 students, 61 responded to the survey (response rate was 29.5{\%}). Among all students, mean ratings on the 3 usability survey items ranged from 4.03 to 4.24. The 5 items assessing the impact on patient care had mean ratings ranging from 3.88 to 4.24. The mean ratings for the 2 student learning items were 4.10 and 4.16. Students' open-ended comments were generally positive, expressing a perceived value in obtaining a more complete contextual picture of patients' conditions and supporting the usability of the H{\&}P 360. Survey response patterns varied across institutions and learner levels. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that using the H{\&}P 360 may enhance information gathering critical for chronic disease management, particularly regarding social drivers of health. As a potential new standard, the H{\&}P 360 may have clinical usability for identifying and addressing health inequities. Future work should assess its effects on patient care and outcomes. ",
issn="2369-3762",
doi="10.2196/66221",
url="https://mededu.jmir.org/2025/1/e66221",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/66221",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40471655"
}