%0 Journal Article
%@ 2369-3762
%I JMIR Publications
%V 11
%N 
%P e66221
%T Implementing the H&P 360 in Three Medical Institutions: Usability Study
%A Hayer,Rupinder
%A Tang,Joyce
%A Bisschops,Julia
%A Schneider,Gregory W
%A Kirley,Kate
%A Khan,Tamkeen
%A Rieger,Erin
%A Walford,Eric
%A Anderson,Irsk
%A Press,Valerie
%A Williams,Brent
%+ American Medical Association, Improving Health Outcomes, 330 North Wabash Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60611, United States, 1 6308499232, rupinder.hayer@ama-assn.org
%K history and physical
%K medical education
%K social drivers
%K social determinants of health
%D 2025
%7 5.6.2025
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Med Educ
%G English
%X 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. 
%M 40471655
%R 10.2196/66221
%U https://mededu.jmir.org/2025/1/e66221
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/66221
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40471655