The Association of Work Overload with Burnout and Intent to Leave the Job Across the Healthcare Workforce During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Burnout has risen across healthcare workers during the pandemic, contributing to workforce turnover. While prior literature has largely focused on physicians and nurses, there is a need to better characterize and identify actionable predictors of burnout and work intentions across healthcare role types. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association of work overload with rates of burnout and intent to leave (ITL) the job in a large national sample of healthcare workers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study conducted between April and December 2020. SETTING: A total of 206 large healthcare organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses, other clinical staff, and non-clinical staff. MEASURES: Work overload, burnout, and ITL. RESULTS: The sample of 43,026 respondents (mean response rate 44%) was comprised of 35.2% physicians, 25.7% nurses, 13.3% other clinical staff, and 25.8% non-clinical staff. The overall burnout rate was 49.9% (56.0% in nursing, 54.1% in other clinical staff, 47.3% in physicians, and 45.6% in non-clinical staff; p < 0.001 for difference). ITL was reported by 28.7% of healthcare workers, with nurses most likely to report ITL (41.0%), followed by non-clinical staff (32.6%), other clinical staff (32.1%), and physicians (24.3%) (p < 0.001 for difference). The prevalence of perceived work overload ranged from 37.1% among physicians to 47.4% in other clinical staff. In propensity-weighted models, work overload was significantly associated with burnout (adjusted risk ratio (ARR) 2.21 to 2.90) and intent to leave (ARR 1.73 to 2.10) across role types. LIMITATIONS: Organizations' participation in the survey was voluntary. CONCLUSIONS: There are high rates of burnout and intent to leave the job across healthcare roles. Proactively addressing work overload across multiple role types may help with concerning trends across the healthcare workforce. This will require a more granular understanding of sources of work overload across different role types, and a commitment to matching work demands to capacity for all healthcare workers.

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Grant Submissions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery.

Primary Care Practice Transformation in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond: Key Principles for General Internal Medicine Practitioners.

As members of the Clinical Practice Committee (CPC) of the Society for General Internal Medicine (SGIM), we support practice innovation and transformation to achieve a more just system by which all people can achieve and maintain optimal health. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the US healthcare delivery system and sharpened our national awareness of long-standing and ingrained system shortcomings. In the face of crisis, SGIM members innovated and energetically mobilized to focus on the immediate needs of our patients and communities. Reflecting on these experiences, we are called to consider what was learned from the pandemic that applies to the future of healthcare delivery. CPC members include leaders in primary care delivery, practice finance, quality of care, patient safety, hospital practice, and health policy. CPC members provide expertise in clinical practice, serving as primary care doctors, hospitalists, and patient advocates who understand the intensity of care needed for those with severe COVID-19 infections, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on Black and Brown communities, the struggles created for those with poor access to care, and the physical and emotional impact it has placed on patients, families, and clinicians. In this consensus statement, we summarize lessons learned from the 2020-2021 pandemic and their broader implications for reform in healthcare delivery. We provide a platform for future work by identifying many interactive elements of healthcare delivery that must be simultaneously addressed in order to ensure that care is accessible, equitably provided, patient-centered, and cost-effective.

Experiences of Work-Family Conflict and Mental Health Symptoms by Gender Among Physician Parents During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on health care workers and disrupted childcare and schooling arrangements in unprecedented ways. As substantial gender inequalities existed in medicine before the pandemic, physician mothers may be at particular risk for adverse professional and psychological consequences. Objective: To assess gender differences in work-family factors and mental health among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included 276 US physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study since their first year of residency training. Physicians who had participated in the primary study as interns during the 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 academic years and opted into a secondary longitudinal follow-up study were invited to complete an online survey in August 2018 and August 2020. Exposures: Work-family experience included 3 single-item questions and the Work and Family Conflict Scale, and mental health symptoms included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were work-to-family and family-to-work conflict and depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms during August 2020. Depressive symptoms between 2018 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) were compared by gender. Results: Among 215 physician parents who completed the August 2020 survey, 114 (53.0%) were female and the weighted mean (SD) age was 40.1 (3.57) years. Among physician parents, women were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% [95% CI, 19.0%-30.2%] vs 0.8% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.1%]; P < .001) and household tasks (31.4% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 7.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-10.9%]; P < .001) during the pandemic compared with men. Women were also more likely than men to work primarily from home (40.9% [95% CI, 35.1%-46.8%] vs 22.0% [95% CI, 17.2%-26.8%]; P < .001) and reduce their work hours (19.4% [95% CI, 14.7%-24.1%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 6.0%-12.8%]; P = .007). Women experienced greater work-to-family conflict (ß = 2.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.59; P = .03), family-to-work conflict (ß = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.18-4.99; P = .02), and depressive (ß = 1.76; 95% CI, 0.56-2.95; P = .046) and anxiety (ß = 2.87; 95% CI, 1.49-4.26; P < .001) symptoms compared with men. We observed a difference between women and men in depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 5.05 [6.64] vs 3.52 [5.75]; P = .009) that was not present before the pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 3.69 [5.26] vs 3.60 [6.30]; P = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found significant gender disparities in work and family experiences and mental health symptoms among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may translate to increased risk for suicide, medical errors, and lower quality of patient care for physician mothers. Institutional and public policy solutions are needed to mitigate the potential adverse consequences for women's careers and well-being.

Making Doctors Effective Managers and Leaders: A Matter of Health and Well-Being.

The COVID-19 crisis has forced physicians to make daily decisions that require knowledge and skills they did not acquire as part of their biomedical training. Physicians are being called upon to be both managers-able to set processes and structures-and leaders-capable of creating vision and inspiring action. Although these skills may have been previously considered as just nice to have, they are now as central to being a physician as physiology and biochemistry. While traditionally only selected physicians have received management training, either through executive or joint degree programs, the authors argue that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of all physicians learning management and leadership skills. Training should emphasize skills related to interpersonal management, systems management, and communication and planning; be seamlessly integrated into the medical curriculum alongside existing content; and be delivered by existing faculty with leadership experience. While leadership programs, such as the Pediatric Leadership for the Underserved program at the University of California, San Francisco, and the Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program at Mass General Brigham, may include project work, instruction by clinical leaders, and content delivered over time, examples of leadership training that seamlessly blend biomedical and management training are lacking. The authors present the Leader and Leadership Education and Development curriculum used at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, which is woven through 4 years of medical school, as an example of leadership training that approximates many of the principles espoused here. The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched the logistical capabilities of health care systems and the entire United States, revealing that management and leadership skills-often viewed as soft skills-are a matter of life and death. Training all physicians in these skills will improve patient care, the well-being of the health care workforce, and health across the United States.