Burnout, stress and intentions to leave work in New Zealand psychiatrists; a mixed methods cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Demand for mental health services in New Zealand and internationally is growing. Little is known about how psychiatrists are faring in this environment. This study aimed to investigate wellbeing of psychiatrists working in the public health system in New Zealand, identify the main risk factors for work-related stress, gauge perceptions of how workload has changed over time, assess job satisfaction and whether individuals intend or desire to leave their work. METHODS: Psychiatrists working in New Zealand who were also members of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists were invited to participate in an online survey. Main outcome measures were degree of burnout and stress experienced at work. Supplementary measures included perceived workplace demands and levels of support. Predictor variables included perceptions of changes to workloads over time, degree of job satisfaction and intentions to leave work. Logistic regression assessed characteristics associated with burnout and job satisfaction as well as intentions to leave work. Free text comments were analysed thematically alongside quantitative trends. RESULTS: 368/526 responded (70% response rate). 34.6% met the criteria for burnout and 35.3% scored with high work stress. There were no significant patterns of association with demographic variables but significant correlation with all but one predictor variable; having experienced a change to the demands of the on-call workload. 45% agreed they would leave their current job if able and 87% disagreed that they are working in a well-resourced mental health service. Respondents emphasised the impact of growing workloads and expressed concerns about their ability to provide optimal care in these circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: High burnout appears to affect one in three psychiatrists in New Zealand. Many attribute their feelings of burnout to demand for their services. These findings may assist with better workforce planning for psychiatry and emphasises potential consequences of demand for and poor resourcing of mental health services for the retention and wellbeing of doctors in psychiatry worldwide.

Teleconsultation in the Management of Elective Orthopedic and Spinal Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Prospective Cohort Study of Patient Experiences.

BACKGROUND: The global adoption of teleconsultation has been expedited as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. By allowing remote communication, teleconsultation may help limit the spread of the virus while maintaining the crucial patient-provider relationship. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the value of teleconsultation compared to in-person visits in the management of elective orthopedic and spinal procedures. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study of 853 patients receiving orthopedic and spinal care at a private outpatient clinic in New Zealand. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: (1) patients receiving telephone consultation remotely, and (2) patients receiving in-person office consultations at the outpatient clinic. All patients received telephone consultations for 4 weeks during the mandated COVID-19 lockdown, followed by 4 weeks of telephone or in-person consultation. Patient preference, satisfaction, and duration of visit were recorded. Comparisons of patient preference between groups, visit type, sex, and location were performed using chi-square tests; similarly, satisfaction scores and visit durations were compared using a general linear model. RESULTS: We report that 91% (353/388) of patients in the telephone group preferred teleconsultation over in-person office visits during the COVID-19 lockdown (P<.001). A combined-group analysis showed that 55.3% (446/807) of all patients preferred teleconsultation compared to 31.2% (252/807) who preferred in-person office visits (P<.001). Patients in the telephone group reported significantly higher satisfaction scores (mean 9.95, SD 0.04, 95% CI 9.87-10.03) compared to patients in the in-person group (mean 9.53, SE 0.04, 95% CI 9.45-9.62; P<.001). Additionally, in-person consultations were significantly longer in duration compared to telephone consultations, with a mean visit time of 6.70 (SE 0.18) minutes, 95% CI 6.32-7.02, compared to 5.10 (SE 0.17) minutes, 95% CI 4.73-5.42 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who use telephone consultations are more likely to prefer it over traditional, in-person visits in the future. This increased preference, coupled with higher patient satisfaction scores and shorter duration of visits, suggests that teleconsultation has a role in orthopedic surgery, which may even extend beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Teleconsultation in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient and physician experiences.

INTRODUCTION: The primary purpose of this review was to evaluate patient and physician preference and satisfaction for teleconsultation in orthopaedic surgery compared to traditional face-to-face consultation. In addition, we evaluated the effects of teleconsultation on patient length of visit, healthcare costs, range of motion (ROM), pain, quality of life (QOL), and ongoing management plans. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomised control trials and case control studies comparing teleconsultation with traditional, face-to-face consultation in the management of orthopaedic conditions were included. The primary outcome measures were patient and physician preference and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included patient length of visit, healthcare costs, ROM, pain, QOL, and ongoing management plans. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were included for systematic review and 8 for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction, length of visit, or time spent with the physician between the telemedicine and in-office control group. The mean difference of patient preference for telemedicine was significantly higher in the telemedicine group compared to the in-office visit group (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.87, p = 0.005). DISCUSSION: Telemedicine was not inferior to face-to-face office visits in regard to patient and physician preference and satisfaction. Therefore, it would be an effective adjunct to face-to-face office visits, serving as a mechanism of triage and long-term continuity of care.