Dataset Information

Program Administrator Burnout in Graduate Medical Education: a Longitudinal Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about the level of burnout among program administrators (PAs) in medical education and its impact on the trainee environment.

Objective

To investigate variations in burnout levels over a 1-year period among a national cohort of PAs and examine any associations between perceived support and isolation.

Design

A 1-year longitudinal study conducted to assess burnout levels among PAs across the USA. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (score range, 0-100) was used to measure burnout over one academic year (July 2017-June 2018). The generalized estimating equations model was used to measure changes in burnout levels from the start of the academic year. To explore the differences in burnout scores across question response levels, a one-way ANOVA test was utilized and reported as least squares means ± SD.

Participants

Individuals who self-identified as PAs in a graduate medical education training program. Among the 1084 persons nationwide who expressed interest, 904 (83%) completed the baseline survey; 29 of the 42 (69%) local administrators completed the survey. "Clients" defined as interns, residents/fellows, and medical students.

Main measures

Change in burnout score using the validated tool. Hypothesis formulated prior to data collection.

Key results

Among the 931 participants, the 3rd quarter (March 2018) marked the lowest average personal burnout score (change from the start of academic year, - 3.67; p < 0.001, 95% CI - 5.77 to - 1.58) and work-related burnout score (change, - 3.03; p < 0.001, 95% CI - 5.01 to - 1.06). Client-related burnout was the lowest in September 2017 (change, - 1.46; p = 0.491; 95% CI - 3.54 to 0.62). June 2018: those who strongly agreed to feeling isolated in their current position had an increased personal (69.1 ± 18.4 SD), work-related (72.5 ± 20.8 SD), and client-related (42.3 ± 23.7 SD) burnout score.

Conclusions

PA burnout levels fluctuate over the academic year and are shown to increase as feelings of isolation grow.

SUBMITTER: Ewen AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7661571 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesOur program implemented East EMWars, a year-long, longitudinal game that added competition to our existing curricular content. We surveyed residents to investigate the impact of gamification in emergency medicine residency training. We hypothesized that residents would report higher levels of motivation, engagement, and challenge with gamification compared to traditional didactics. Furthermore, we hypothesized that residents would exhibit generally positive perceptions about gamification as a learning tool and that it would translate to improved performance on the annual in-training examination.MethodsThis was a single-center, prospective pre- and post-intervention survey study at a community-based emergency medicine residency program. Given the multiplicity of research questions and inherent nature of educational research, a mixed methods approach was utilized. We utilized nonparametric testing for quantitative data with paired responses pre- and post-intervention. We solicited comments on the post-intervention that were categorized under thematic approach and presented in complete and unedited form in the results.ResultsEighteen (100%) of eligible residents in our program participated in both surveys. There were statistically significant increases in reported levels of motivation, engagement, and challenge with gamification compared to traditional didactic methods. Residents also reported overwhelmingly positive general perceptions about gamification and its broader generalizability and applicability. We did not reach statistical significance in determining if in-training exam scores were associated with our gamification initiative.ConclusionsThis study was a first-of-its-kind look into a longitudinal game in an emergency medicine residency program. Although our results are encouraging, medical educators need further research to determine if this increase in motivation, engagement, and challenge will be associated with an increase in examination scores or, more importantly, healthcare outcomes. Theory-based, broader-scale, prospective studies are needed to further explore and help establish these associations and outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundPromoting residents' wellbeing and decreasing burnout is a focus of Graduate Medical Education (GME). A supportive clinical learning environment is required to optimize residents' wellness and learning.ObjectiveTo determine if longitudinal assessments of burnout and learning environment as perceived by residents combined with applying continuous quality Model for Improvement and serial Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles to test interventions would improve residents' burnout.MethodsFrom November 2017 to January 2020, 271 GME residents in internal medicine, general surgery, psychiatry, emergency medicine, family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, were assessed over five cycles by Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and by clinical learning environment factors (which included personal/social relationships, self-defined burnout, program burnout support, program back-up support, clinical supervision by faculty, and sleep difficulties). The results of the MBI and clinical learning environment factors were observed and analyzed to determine and develop indicated Institutional and individual program interventions using a Plan, Do, Study, Act process with each of the five cycles.ResultsThe response rate was 78.34%. MBI parameters for all GME residents improved over time but were not statistically significant. Residents' positive perception of the clinical supervision by faculty was significantly and independently associated with improved MBI scores, while residents' self-defined burnout; and impaired personal relations perceptions were independently significantly associated with adverse MBI scores on liner regression. For all GME, significant improvements improved over time in residents' perception of impaired personal relationships (p < 0.001), self-defined burnout (p = 0.013), program burn-out support (p = 0.002) and program back-up support (p = 0.028). For the Internal Medicine Residency program, there were statistically significant improvements in all three MBI factors (p < 0.001) and in clinical learning environment measures (p = 0.006 to < 0.001). Interventions introduced during the PDSA cycles included organization-directed interventions (such as: faculty and administrative leadership recruitment, workflow interventions and residents' schedule optimization), and individual interventions (such as: selfcare, mentoring and resilience training).ConclusionIn our study, for all GME residents, clinical learning environment factors in contrast to MBI factors showed significant improvements. Residents' positive perception of the clinical learning environment was associated with improved burnout measures. Residents in separate programs responded differently with one program reaching significance in all MBI and clinical learning environment factors measured. Continuous wellbeing assessment of all GME residents and introduction of Institutional and individual program interventions was accomplished.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Little is known about the factors that influence applicants' decisions to select a graduate medical education training program. Programs may improve their recruitment by better understanding that process. METHODS: Following the Match for the years 2008 though 2010, an electronic survey was sent to 664 applicants to 15 Duke University graduate medical education programs. Those individuals were ranked high enough to match to Duke University but chose to match at another institution. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore factors influencing candidates' decisions and to identify program and institutional improvements to better attract top candidates. RESULTS: Response rate was 63% (417/664). The quantitative analysis identified factors that were "very important" to applicants (current resident satisfaction, relationship between faculty and residents, collegiality of current residents, quantity and quality of faculty content/mentoring, faculty teaching expertise, diversity of patients and types of procedures, and location), and those that were "not important" to applicants (child care or education opportunities for children, salary, United States Medical Licensing Examination requirements, part-time training options, favorable environment for minorities or women). There were statistically significant differences among specialties. Qualitative analysis identified 3 themes as most influential in their choice: location, program relationships, and the interview experience. CONCLUSION: The collection of 3 years of data across specialties identified factors that are important to applicants' choice of a training program. Some factors can be addressed quickly and with little effort, such as the format of the interview day. Others require programs and institutions to revisit their mission, priorities, and training culture to improve relationships between residents and faculty. Programs may wish to be more tactical in selecting the residents and faculty who meet with applicants and be more focused in planning how the interview time is used.