Burnout Among Physicians With Disabilities.

This survey study examines reported experiences of burnout, including emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, among physicians with disability.

Patient And Coworker Mistreatment Of Physicians With Disabilities.

Physicians from underrepresented groups are at greater risk of experiencing mistreatment from coworkers and patients, including offensive remarks, physical harm, threats of physical harm, and unwanted sexual advances. These can have far-reaching negative consequences for the physicians' personal and professional lives. This study used data from a nationally representative sample of physicians to examine workplace mistreatment experienced by physicians with disabilities and determine whether physicians with disabilities are more likely to experience mistreatment in their workplace than physicians without disabilities. Compared with their nondisabled peers, physicians with disabilities had a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing every type of mistreatment from both patients and coworkers. Our findings suggest the need for disability-focused anti-mistreatment policies and practices.

Do physicians with academic affiliation have lower burnout and higher career-related satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Physicians report increasing burnout and declining career-related satisfaction, negatively impacting physician well-being and patient care quality. For physicians with academic affiliations, these issues can directly affect future generations of physicians. Previous research on burnout and satisfaction has focused on factors like work hours, gender, race, specialty, and work setting. We seek to contribute to the literature by examining these associations while controlling for demographic, family, and work-related characteristics. Furthermore, we aim to determine any differential effects of faculty rank. METHODS: We analyzed data on practicing physicians in the U.S. from the Association of American Medical College's (AAMC) 2019 National Sample Survey of Physicians (NSSP,) which includes variables adapted from the Maslach Burnout Inventory. We used ordinal logistic regressions to explore associations between academic affiliation and burnout. We conducted a factor analysis to consolidate satisfaction measures, then examined their relationship with academic affiliation using multivariate linear regressions. All regression analyses controlled for physicians' individual, family, and work characteristics. RESULTS: Among respondents (n = 6,000), 40% were affiliated with academic institutions. Physicians with academic affiliations had lower odds than their non-affiliated peers for feeling emotional exhaustion every day (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.96; P < .001) and reported greater career-related satisfaction (0.10-0.14, SE, 0.03, 0.02; P < .001). The odds of feeling burnt out every day were higher for associate professors, (OR 1.57; 95% CI: 1.22-2.04; P < .001) assistant professors, (OR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.28-2.11; P < .001), and instructors (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29; P < .001), relative to full professors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to the literature on burnout and career satisfaction by exploring their association with academic affiliation and examining how they vary among different faculty ranks. An academic affiliation may be an essential factor in keeping physicians' burnout levels lower and career satisfaction higher. It also suggests that policies addressing physician well-being are not "one size fits all" and should consider factors such as academic affiliation, faculty rank and career stage, gender identity, the diversity of available professional opportunities, and institutional and social supports. For instance, department chairs and administrators in medical institutions could protect physicians' time for academic activities like teaching to help keep burnout lower and career satisfaction higher.

The Association of American Medical Colleges' Local Area Physician Workforce Modeling Project.

Physician workforce planning must address multiple concerns such as having sufficient numbers and adequate geographic distribution of physicians and pressures for physicians to adapt to new models of care and payment. Though there are national workforce planning tools, planning tools for local areas have been scarce. This article describes a dynamic simulation model developed as a pilot project to support physician workforce planning in 2 metropolitan areas, Cleveland and Albuquerque (February 2014-June 2016). This model serves as a prototype for planning tools that could be used by medical educators and local health systems to project the effect of different policies on physician supply and demand. System dynamics and group model building approaches were used to develop the model with the participation of local stakeholders to create the model's causal structure. The model included determinants of the demand for primary and specialty care for the local population and projected the effects of births and deaths, aging, level of chronic illness present, and migration on demand. Physician supply was disaggregated by primary versus specialty care, age, sex, and work setting and projected based on completions of local residency programs, physician migration in and out of the area, and retirements. Feedback relationships between supply and demand (e.g., adequacy of care affecting the distribution of chronic illnesses, demand for care influencing in- and out-migration of physicians) were also included and had important effects on the results produced by the model. Scenarios were simulated that projected increased demand for care (e.g., through expanded insurance coverage) and increased supply (e.g., through practice incentives to encourage in-migration) and a combination of these. An expanded advanced practice registered nurse and physician assistant capacity scenario was also simulated. In Albuquerque, the combination scenario yielded the greatest increases in local physician supply.

Patient preference in primary care provider type.

BACKGROUND: Given the growing roles of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), patients are increasingly able to choose their primary care provider type. Studies examining patient preferences among provider types are limited and ours is the first to examine reasons for patients' provider type preferences. METHODS: Using data from the 2014 Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Consumer Survey of Health Care Access, we used qualitative analysis to identify themes in open text responses of reasons for respondents' provider type preference (N = 4220). After coding responses for themes, we used chi-square tests to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in respondents' reasons for their provider preference, and whether reasons vary by the gender, race, or age of the respondent. RESULTS: Those preferring physicians were more likely to cite physician qualifications (75%) and trust (7%) than those preferring NP/PAs (qualifications = 36%; trust = 4%). Those preferring NP/PAs were more likely to cite bedside manner (20%) and convenience (9%) than those preferring physicians (bedside manner = 5%; convenience = 4%). Both groups of respondents were equally likely to mention previous experience with their provider type as a reason for their preference (prefer physician = 19%; prefer NP/PA = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider qualifications and previous health care experiences are cited as key reasons for preferring all provider types. Additionally, physicians are more often preferred for their qualifications and technical skills, whereas NP/PAs are more often preferred for their interpersonal skills. IMPLICATIONS: Our results could help providers, health system administrators, workforce planners, and policy makers better understand patient perspectives and design care that enhances patient satisfaction.

Survey shows consumers open to a greater role for physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

Impending physician shortages in the United States will necessitate greater reliance on physician assistants and nurse practitioners, particularly in primary care. But how willing are Americans to accept that change? This study examines provider preferences from patients' perspective, using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' Consumer Survey. We found that about half of the respondents preferred to have a physician as their primary care provider. However, when presented with scenarios wherein they could see a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner sooner than a physician, most elected to see one of the other health care professionals instead of waiting. Although our findings provide evidence that US consumers are open to the idea of receiving care from physician assistants and nurse practitioners, it is important to consider barriers to more widespread use, such as scope-of-practice regulations. Policy makers should incorporate such evidence into solutions for the physician shortage.

Physician workforce projections in an era of health care reform.

In 2020, the United States may face shortages of 45,400 primary care physicians and 46,100 medical specialists-a total of 91,500 too few doctors. Unfortunately, health workforce shortages like these are being advanced as cause for repealing or "defunding" the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The extension of health insurance coverage to millions of Americans is a critical first step toward a healthier America. It would be a national failure to leave millions of Americans without health insurance coverage because they will generate additional demand. Rather, the solution is to find ways to meet that demand. Workforce projections utilizing real data and carefully formulated assumptions to assess how and why supply and demand change over time can greatly assist policy makers in finding those solutions. With implementation of the ACA under way, it is time to understand what lessons such projections can teach, and to begin to heed those lessons.

Factors dominating choice of surgical specialty.

BACKGROUND: There has been much focus on factors influencing medical students' career choice, prompted by such concerns as a sufficient future surgical workforce, declining applicant pool, changing gender composition, and a cultural shift in values and priorities. Once in a surgical residency, there are little data on factors influencing general surgery (GS) residents' final specialty choice. STUDY DESIGN: A survey instrument was developed and content validated in conjunction with the Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Workforce Studies. The final instrument was distributed electronically between March 24 and May 2, 2008, through 251 GS program directors to all ACGME-accredited GS residents (n = 7,508). RESULTS: Response rate was 29% (2,153 residents; 89% programs). Half of GS residents remained undecided about specialty choice through the 2(nd) year, declining to 2% by year 5. Of the two-thirds who decided on a specialty, 16.5% chose to remain in GS, 14.6% chose plastics, 9.3% cardiothoracic, and 8.5% vascular. The specialty choice factors most likely to be very important were type of procedures and techniques, exposure to positive role model, and ability to balance work and personal life. Relative importance of factors in specialty choice varied by gender and chosen specialty. Mentors play a key role in specialty choice (66% decided had mentors versus 47% undecided). Work schedule was the most frequently selected shortcoming in every specialty except plastics. Cardiothoracic surgery followed by GS had the highest shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of GS residents plan to subspecialize. Three factors dominate specialty choice. Faculty need to understand their impact potential to modify or change perceptions of their specialty.

Factors affecting interest in cardiothoracic surgery: survey of North American general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Applications to cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) training programs have declined precipitously. The viewpoints of potential applicants, general surgery residents, have not yet been assessed. Their perceptions are crucial to understanding the cause and formulating appropriate changes in our educational system. METHODS: An initial survey instrument was content-validated, and the final instrument was distributed electronically between March 24 and May 2, 2008 through 251 general surgery program directors to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery residents (7,508). RESULTS: The response rate was 29% (2153 residents; 89% programs). Respondent's demographics matched existing data; 6% were committed to CTS, and 26% reported prior or current interest in CTS. Interest waned after postgraduate year 3. Interest correlated with CTS rotation duration. Of the respondents committed to CTS, 76% had mentors (71% were cardiothoracic surgeons). CTS had the most shortcomings among 9 subspecialties. Job security and availability accounted for 46% of reported shortcomings (3 to 14 times higher than other subspecialties). Work schedule accounted for 25%. Length of training was not a very important factor, although it was identified as an option to increase interest in CTS. Residents who were undecided or uninterested in CTS were twice as likely to cite the ability to balance work and personal life as important than residents who chose CTS. CONCLUSIONS: The dominant concern documented in the survey is job security and availability. The importance of mentorship and exposure to CTS faculty in promoting interest was also evident. Decision makers should consider these findings when planning changes in education and the specialty.

Factors affecting interest in cardiothoracic surgery: Survey of North American general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Applications to cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) training programs have declined precipitously. The viewpoints of potential applicants, general surgery residents, have not yet been assessed. Their perceptions are crucial to understanding the cause and formulating appropriate changes in our educational system. METHODS: An initial survey instrument was content-validated, and the final instrument was distributed electronically between March 24 and May 2, 2008 through 251 general surgery program directors to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery residents (7508). RESULTS: The response rate was 29% (2153 residents; 89% programs). Respondent's demographics matched existing data; 6% were committed to CTS, and 26% reported prior or current interest in CTS. Interest waned after postgraduate year 3. Interest correlated with CTS rotation duration. Of the respondents committed to CTS, 76% had mentors (71% were cardiothoracic surgeons). CTS had the most shortcomings among 9 subspecialties. Job security and availability accounted for 46% of reported shortcomings (3 to 14 times higher than other subspecialties). Work schedule accounted for 25%. Length of training was not a very important factor, although it was identified as an option to increase interest in CTS. Residents who were undecided or uninterested in CTS were twice as likely to cite the ability to balance work and personal life as important than residents who chose CTS. CONCLUSIONS: The dominant concern documented in the survey is job security and availability. The importance of mentorship and exposure to CTS faculty in promoting interest was also evident. Decision makers should consider these findings when planning changes in education and the specialty.