Illness presenteeism among physicians and trainees: Study protocol of a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Illness presenteeism (IP) is the phenomenon where individuals continue to work despite illness. While it has been a prevalent and longstanding issue in medicine, the recent onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing movement to improve physician wellness brings renewed interest in this topic. However, there have been no comprehensive reviews on the state of literature of this topic. PURPOSE: The main aim of this scoping review is to explore what is known about presenteeism in physicians, residents, and medical students in order to map and summarize the literature, identify research gaps and inform future research. More specifically: How has illness presenteeism been defined, problematized or perceived? What methods and approaches have been used to study the phenomenon? Has the literature changed since the pandemic? METHOD: Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework several databases will be searched by an experienced librarian. Through an iterative process, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and a data extraction form refined. Data will be analyzed using quantitative and qualitative content analyses. POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS: By summarizing the literature on IP, this study will provide a better understanding of the IP phenomena to inform future research and potentially have implications for physician wellness and public health.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

The impact of adoption of an electronic health record on emergency physician work: A time motion study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of the transition from a primarily paper-based electronic health record (EHR) to a comprehensive EHR on emergency physician work tasks and efficiency in an academic emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a time motion study of emergency physicians on shift in our ED. Fifteen emergency physicians were directly observed for two 4-hour sessions prior to EHR implementation, during go live, and then during post-implementation. Observers performed continuous observation and measured times for the following tasks: chart review, direct patient care, documentation, physical movement, communication, teaching, handover, and other. We compared time spent on tasks during the 3 phases of transition and analyzed mean times for the tasks per patient and per shift using 2-tailed t test for comparison. RESULTS: Physicians saw fewer patients per shift during go-live (0.51 patient/hour, P < 0.01), patient efficiency increased in post-implementation but did not recover to baseline (-0.31 patient/hour, P = 0.03). From pre-implementation to post-implementation, we observed a trend towards increased physician time spent charting (+54 seconds/patient, P = 0.05) and documenting (+36 seconds/patient, P = 0.36); time spent doing direct patient care trended towards decreasing (-0.43 seconds/patient, P = 0.23). A small percentage of shifts were spent receiving technical support and time spent on teaching activities remained relatively stable during EHR transition. CONCLUSION: A new EHR impacts emergency physician task allocation and several changes are sustained post-implementation. Physician efficiency decreased and did not recover to baseline. Understanding workflow changes during transition to EHR in the ED is necessary to develop strategies to maintain quality of care.

The Beginning of the End.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between gender, research productivity, academic rank, and departmental leadership positions of pathology faculty in North America. METHODS: The online information presented for the faculty members in all American- and Canadian-accredited pathology residency programs' official websites and Elsevier's SCOPUS were queried to assess research productivity, academic ranks, and leadership positions. RESULTS: Among 5,228 academic pathologists included in our study, there were 3,122 (59.7%) males and 2,106 (40.3%) females. Male faculty held higher academic ranks (being professor) and leadership positions (chair/program director) (P < .0001). Males were more likely to hold combined MD-PhD degrees (P < .0001) than females. The median h-index for the male faculty was 17 vs 9 for the female faculty (P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: Gender has a significant influence on leadership positions, academic ranks, and research productivity among pathology faculty members in North America.

Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this methodological review was to determine the extent to which comparative imaging systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) use primary studies with comparative or non-comparative designs. METHODS: MEDLINE was used to identify DTA systematic reviews published in imaging journals between January 2000 and May 2018. INCLUSION CRITERIA: systematic reviews comparing at least two index tests (one of which was imaging-based); review characteristics were extracted. Study design and other characteristics of primary studies included in the systematic reviews were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred three comparative imaging reviews were included; 11 (11%) included only comparative studies, 12 (11%) included only non-comparative primary studies, and 80 (78%) included both comparative and non-comparative primary studies. For reviews containing both comparative and non-comparative primary studies, the median proportion of non-comparative primary studies was 81% (IQR 57-90%). Of 92 reviews that included non-comparative primary studies, 86% did not recognize this as a limitation. Furthermore, among 4182 primary studies, 3438 (82%) were non-comparative and 744 (18%) were comparative in design. CONCLUSION: Most primary studies included in comparative imaging reviews are non-comparative in design and awareness of the risk of bias associated with this is low. This may lead to incorrect conclusions about the relative accuracy of diagnostic tests and be counter-productive for informing guidelines and funding decisions about imaging tests. KEY POINTS: • Few comparative accuracy imaging reviews include only primary studies with optimal comparative study designs. Among the rest, few recognize the risk of bias conferred from inclusion of primary studies with non-comparative designs. • The demand for accurate comparative accuracy data combined with minimal awareness of valid comparative study designs may lead to counter-productive research and inadequately supported clinical decisions for diagnostic tests. • Using comparative accuracy imaging reviews with a high risk of bias to inform guidelines and funding decisions may have detrimental impacts on patient care.