Dataset Information

Reported burnout among U.S. general surgery residents: A survey of the association of program directors in surgery members.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The literature remains unclear on the development, consequences, and interventions for burnout in resident populations. We aim to identify the prevalence and nuances of reported burnout in general surgery resident physicians to better understand which factors contribute the greatest risk.

Methods

A 42-question anonymous online survey was distributed by the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) to general surgery resident physicians. ANOVA, chi-square and multinomial regression analyses were performed with significance defined as p < 0.05. This survey was reported in line with the STOCSS criteria.

Results

81 survey responses were received. Burnout was reported by 89.5% of university-hospital affiliated respondents and 95.2% of community teaching hospital affiliated respondents. After adjustment, community respondents showed a nearly fifteen times greater likelihood of burnout (aOR = 14.735, 95% CI: 0.791,274.482). Females were 2.7 times as likely as males to report burnout (aOR = 2.749, 95% CI: 0.189,39.960) and nearly twice as likely to report contemplating suicide (aOR = 1.819, 95% CI: 0.380,8.715). Burnout rates by hours worked/week revealed that 100% of those working ≥80 h/week report experiencing burnout.

Conclusion

Overall burnout rates reported by surgical residents respondents were high. Community teaching hospital setting, female gender, and increased number of hours worked per week may be associated with higher rates of burnout. Both female and community-affiliated residents were at increased risk of reporting suicidal ideation. Targeted interventions are needed to adequately address program-specific causes for resident burnout and reduce its prevalence in high-risk cohorts.

SUBMITTER: Kinslow K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7556262 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE:To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN:Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING:North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS:Program directors. MEASUREMENTS:Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS:Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION:The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION:Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:None.