Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Support and Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a National Survey.

Background: Burnout is common among physicians and physician leaders, including residency program directors (PDs). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other stressors in 2020 on PDs is unknown. Objective: To measure the prevalence of burnout among internal medicine (IM) residency PDs 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A total of 429 IM PDs, representing 83% of accredited residency programs, were surveyed from August to December 2020. Burnout, using a 2-item screening tool, and self-reported consideration of resigning in 2020, were compared to their annual prevalence since 2012 and tested for possible associations with pandemic stressors and program characteristics. Results: The survey response rate was 61.5% (264 of 429). One-third (33.6%, 87 of 259) of PD respondents met burnout criteria, and 45.1% (110 of 244) reported considering resigning in the past year, which were within the range of preceding years. PDs who reported feeling highly supported by institutional leadership were less likely to meet burnout criteria and to have considered resigning. There were no associations between burnout or consideration of resigning and the amount of clinical time PDs spent in their roles, duration of maximum stress on programs, budget cuts to programs, or geographic region. Conclusions: The prevalence of burnout among PDs in fall 2020 was similar to the prevalence of burnout in pre-pandemic years despite uniquely extreme stressors. PDs' perception of being highly supported by institutional leadership was associated with lower prevalence of burnout and consideration of resigning. Perceived leadership support may be a protective factor against burnout during periods of high stress.

Hazard pay for internal medicine resident physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey of program directors.

BACKGROUND: Hazard pay for resident physicians has been controversial in the COVID-19 pandemic. Program director (PD) beliefs about hazard pay and the extent of provision to internal medicine (IM) residents are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hazard pay provision to residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic and residency program characteristics associated with hazard pay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative survey was conducted of 429 US/US territory-based IM PDs from August to December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Hazard pay provision and PD beliefs about hazard pay were tested for association with factors related to the pandemic surge and program characteristics. RESULTS: Response rate was 61.5% (264/429); 19.5% of PDs reported hazard pay provision. PD belief about hazard pay was equivocal: 33.2% agreed, 43.1% disagreed, and 23.7% were uncertain. Hazard pay occurred more commonly in the Middle-Atlantic Census Division (including New York City) and with earlier surges and greater resident participation in COVID-19 patient care. Hazard pay occurred more commonly where PDs supported hazard pay (74.5% vs. 22.1%, p = .018). Reasons most frequently given in support of hazard pay were essential worker status, equity, and schedule disruption. Those opposed cited professional obligation and equity. CONCLUSION: Hazard pay for IM residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic was nominal but more commonly associated with heavily impacted institutions. Although PD beliefs were mixed, positive belief was associated with provision. The unique role of residents as both essential workers and trainees might explain our varied results. Further investigation may inform future policy, especially in times of crisis.

Implementing a low-threshold audio-only telehealth model for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder at a community-based non-profit organization in Washington, D.C.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had especially devastating effects on people who use drugs. Due to pandemic protocols in the USA, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) regulations became more flexible, permitting our community-based nonprofit organization to transition its low-threshold MAT clinic to an audio-only telehealth model of care in 2020. Lessons learned have the potential to improve MAT delivery to people with OUD. CASE PRESENTATION: This case study describes our transition from a low-threshold community-based in-person MAT clinic to an audio-only telehealth model. We extracted data from electronic health records to describe patient characteristics and to calculate treatment retention rates. Patients were predominantly male (74.4%) and black (90.6%). The mean age was 53 years old with more than half of the clients aged 55 or older. Less than half (42.3%) of the patients lived in stable housing. Patients commonly had self-reported comorbid conditions such as hypertension (35.4%), hepatitis C (23.5%), diabetes (11.9%), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (7.2%). A majority of patients (68.6%) reported engagement with behavioral health care. We measure the success of our intervention relative to published retention rates, both overall as well as for in-person and telehealth care. In-person retention rates at 90- and 180-days were substantially higher than telehealth retention rates (93.9% vs 68.4% and 91.5% vs 51.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Low-threshold medication-assisted treatment in the care of people with opioid use disorder is essential to increasing treatment access and continuity. We found that an audio-only telehealth model was viable. Although we had decreased retention rates following the transition to an audio-only telehealth model, our rates remained excellent compared to published values for in-person MAT care. We call for advocacy and regulations to support continued use of telehealth services throughout and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.