Dataset Information

Risk factors associated with physician trainee concern over missed educational opportunities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a transformation of clinical care practices to protect both patients and providers. These changes led to a decrease in patient volume, impacting physician trainee education due to lost clinical and didactic opportunities. We measured the prevalence of trainee concern over missed educational opportunities and investigated the risk factors leading to such concerns.

Methods

All residents and fellows at a large academic medical center were invited to participate in a web-based survey in May of 2020. Participants responded to questions regarding demographic characteristics, specialty, primary assigned responsibility during the previous 2 weeks (clinical, education, or research), perceived concern over missed educational opportunities, and burnout. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between missed educational opportunities and the measured variables.

Results

22% (301 of 1375) of the trainees completed the survey. 47% of the participants were concerned about missed educational opportunities. Trainees assigned to education at home had 2.85 [95%CI 1.33-6.45] greater odds of being concerned over missed educational opportunities as compared with trainees performing clinical work. Trainees performing research were not similarly affected [aOR = 0.96, 95%CI (0.47-1.93)]. Trainees in pathology or radiology had 2.51 [95%CI 1.16-5.68] greater odds of concern for missed educational opportunities as compared with medicine. Trainees with greater concern over missed opportunities were more likely to be experiencing burnout (p = 0.038).

Conclusions

Trainees in radiology or pathology and those assigned to education at home were more likely to be concerned about their missed educational opportunities. Residency programs should consider providing trainees with research or at home clinical opportunities as an alternative to self-study should future need for reduced clinical hours arise.

SUBMITTER: Lou SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8052552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, there have been concerted efforts to improve racial and ethnic diversity in the physician-scientist workforce. Identifying factors associated with career choices among those underrepresented in medicine and science is a necessary first step to advance this objective. The aim of the present study was to assess the attitudes and factors associated with academic and research career interests among underrepresented predoctoral physician-scientists.MethodsA cross-sectional 70-question survey was distributed to all predoctoral single degree (MD or DO) and dual degree (MD/PhD or DO/PhD) trainees at 32 medical schools in the United States from 2012 to 2014. Main outcomes included factors important to advancement in academic medicine, intended medical specialty, and future career plans. To test the post-hoc hypothesis of whether trainees from underrepresented groups have differing perceptions of career trajectories and obstacles than their counterparts, we evaluated responses according to self-identified race/ethnic status using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. All tests were two-sided and significance level of < 0.05 was used.ResultsThere were a total of 4433 responses representing all predoctoral training stages. The response rate was 27%. Most respondents were single degree trainees (MD/DO 79% vs MD/DO-PhD 21%). Most respondents self-identified as White (67%), followed by Multi-racial or Other (14.3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (10.4%), Hispanic (6%), and Black or African American (4.1%). Desired career sector, career intention, and clinical specialty interest differed across race/ethnic groups. With respect to career selection factors, anticipated non-work related responsibilities during residency were also significantly different between these groups. By multivariable regression analysis, Black or African American trainees were significantly less likely than White trainees to indicate a career in academia (OR 0.496, 95% CI 0.322-0.764) and basic research (OR 0.314, 95% CI 0.115-0.857), while Multi-racial or Other trainees were also less likely than White trainees to indicate a career in academia (OR 0.763, 95% CI 0.594-0.980).ConclusionsThese data represent the first in-depth survey of career aspirations, perceptions, and interests between demographically underrepresented and non-underrepresented predoctoral physician-scientist trainees. Our results identify key differences between these cohorts, which may guide efforts to improve diversity within the physician-scientist workforce.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put considerable physical and emotional strain on frontline healthcare workers. Among frontline healthcare workers, physician trainees represent a unique group-functioning simultaneously as both learners and caregivers and experiencing considerable challenges during the pandemic. However, we have a limited understanding regarding the emotional effects and vulnerability experienced by trainees during the pandemic. We investigated the effects of trainee exposure to patients being tested for COVID-19 on their depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and professional fulfillment. All physician trainees at an academic medical center (n = 1375) were invited to participate in an online survey. We compared the measures of depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and professional fulfillment among trainees who were exposed to patients being tested for COVID-19 and those that were not, using univariable and multivariable models. We also evaluated perceived life stressors such as childcare, home schooling, personal finances and work-family balance among both groups. 393 trainees completed the survey (29% response rate). Compared to the non-exposed group, the exposed group had a higher prevalence of stress (29.4% vs. 18.9%), and burnout (46.3% vs. 33.7%). The exposed group also experienced moderate to extremely high perceived stress regarding childcare and had a lower work-family balance. Multivariable models indicated that trainees who were exposed to COVID-19 patients reported significantly higher stress (10.96 [95% CI, 9.65 to 12.46] vs 8.44 [95% CI, 7.3 to 9.76]; P = 0.043) and were more likely to be burned out (1.31 [95% CI, 1.21 to1.41] vs 1.07 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.19]; P = 0.002]. We also found that female trainees were more likely to be stressed (P = 0.043); while unmarried trainees were more likely to be depressed (P = 0.009), and marginally more likely to have anxiety (P = 0.051). To address these challenges, wellness programs should focus on sustaining current programs, develop new and targeted mental health resources that are widely accessible and devise strategies for creating awareness regarding these resources.

Project description:Importance:As the clinical workforce becomes more diverse, physicians encounter patients who demean them based on social characteristics. Little is known about physicians' perspectives on these encounters and their effects. This knowledge would help develop policies and best practices for institutions and training programs. Objective:To describe the range and importance of encounters with biased patients and the barriers and facilitators to effective responses. Design, Setting, and Participants:This qualitative study recruited convenience samples of hospitalist attending physicians, internal medicine residents, and medical students from 3 campuses affiliated with 1 academic medical center. Data were collected from 50 individuals within 13 focus groups from May 9 through October 15, 2018. Focus groups were conducted using open-ended probes, audiotaped, and transcribed. Participants used their own definition of biased patient behavior. Each transcript was independently coded by at least 2 investigators. Data were analyzed from May 2018 through February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Major themes associated with types of encounter, importance to the participant, and barriers and facilitators to effective responses were abstracted through the constant comparative approach. Results:Overall, 50 individuals (11 hospitalists, 26 residents, and 13 students) participated; 24 (48%) were nonwhite. At total of 26 participants (52%) identified as women; 22 (44%), as men; and 2 (4%), as gender nonconforming. Reports of biased behavior ranged from patient refusal of care and explicit racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks to belittling compliments or jokes. Targeted physicians reported an emotional toll that included exhaustion, self-doubt, and cynicism. Nontargeted bystanders reported moral distress and uncertainty about how to respond. Participant responses ranged from withdrawal from clinical role to a heightened determination to provide standard of care. Barriers to effective responses included lack of skills, insufficient support from senior colleagues and the institution, and perception of lack of utility associated with responding. Participants expressed a need for training on dealing with biased patients and for clear institutional policies to guide responses. Conclusions and Relevance:In this qualitative study of physicians and medical students, encounters with demeaning patients ranged from refusal of care to belittling jokes and were highly challenging and painful. Addressing biased patient behavior will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospitals to create policies and trainings conducive to a clinical environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike.