Associations between COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Overtime, Perceived Chronic Stress and Burnout Symptoms in German General Practitioners and Practice Personnel-A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The mental burdens of general practitioners (GPs) and practice assistants (PrAs) during the COVID-19 pandemic are well investigated. Work-related conditions like overtime are known to contribute to perceived chronic stress and burnout symptoms. However, there is limited evidence regarding the specific mechanisms, which link pandemic-related overtime, chronic stress and burnout symptoms. This study used data from the IMPROVEjob trial to improve psychological well-being in general practice personnel. METHODS: This prospective study with 226 German GPs and PrAs used the baseline (pre-pandemic: October 2019 to March 2020) and follow-up data (pandemic: October 2020 to April 2021) of the IMPROVEjob trial. Overtime was self-reported as hours above the regular work time. Perceived chronic stress was assessed using the Trier Inventory for the Assessment of Chronic Stress Screening Scale (TICS-SSCS), while burnout symptoms were evaluated using a short version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). A mediation analysis investigated the differences of the three main variables between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. RESULTS: Burnout symptoms increased significantly from baseline to follow-up (p = 0.003). Overtime correlated positively with burnout symptoms (Total Effect: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.23). Decomposition of the total effect revealed a significant indirect effect over perceived chronic stress (0.11; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.18) and no significant direct effect (0.02; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.12), indicating a full mediation. CONCLUSION: In this large longitudinal study, pandemic-related overtime led to significantly higher levels of burnout symptoms, linked by a pathway through perceived chronic stress. Future prevention strategies need to aim at reducing the likelihood of overtime to ensure the mental well-being of practice personnel.

The Predominance of the Health-Promoting Patterns of Work Behavior and Experience in General Practice Teams-Results of the IMPROVEjob Study.

This study aims to identify the distribution of the "Work-related behavior and experience patterns" (Arbeitsbezogenes Verhaltens-und Erlebnismuster, AVEM) in general practitioners and their teams by using baseline data of the IMPROVEjob study. Members of 60 general practices with 84 physicians in a leadership position, 28 employed physicians, and 254 practice assistants participated in a survey in 2019 and 2020. In this analysis, we focused on AVEM variables. Age, practice years, work experience, and working time were used as control variables in the Spearman Rho correlations and analysis of variance. The majority of the participants (72.1%) revealed a health-promoting pattern (G or S). Three of eleven AVEM dimensions were above the norm for the professional group "employed physicians". The AVEM dimensions "striving for perfection" (p < 0.001), "experience of success at work" (p < 0.001), "satisfaction with life" (p = 0.003), and "experience of social support" (p = 0.019) differed significantly between the groups' practice owners and practice assistants, with the practice owners achieving the higher values, except for experience of social support. Practice affiliation had no effect on almost all AVEM dimensions. We found a high prevalence of AVEM health-promoting patterns in our sample. Nearly half of the participants in all professional groups showed an unambitious pattern (S). Adapted interventions for the represented AVEM patterns are possible and should be utilized for maintaining mental health among general practice teams.

180° view on general practitioners' leadership skills: practice-level comparisons of leader and staff assessments using data from the cluster-randomised controlled IMPROVEjob study.

OBJECTIVES: Strong primary care leaders are needed to assure high quality services for patient populations. This study analysed general practitioners' (GP) leadership skills comparing practice-level self and staff assessments based on the full range of leadership model and the leader-member exchange (LMX). SETTING: The questionnaire survey was conducted among German general practice leaders and their staff participating in the IMPROVEjob trial. PARTICIPANTS: The study population comprised 60 German general practices with 366 participants: 84 GP practice leaders and 282 employees (28 physicians and 254 practice assistants). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Leadership skills of the practice leaders were measured using the Integrative Leadership Questionnaire (German Fragebogen für integrative Führung) and the LMX-7 questionnaire. Leaders rated themselves and practice staff rated their leaders. The data was analysed by paired mean comparisons on the practice level. RESULTS: For most leadership dimensions, practice leaders rated themselves higher than their employees rated them. Differences were found for transformational leadership (p<0.001, d=0.41), especially for the dimensions 'innovation' (p<0.001, d=0.69) and 'individuality focus' (p<0.001, d=0.50). For transactional leadership, the dimension 'goal setting' differed significantly (p<0.01, d=0.30) but not the other dimensions. Scores for negative leadership were low and showed no differences between leaders and employees. Interestingly, employed physicians' rated their practice leaders higher on the two transformational ('performance development', 'providing a vision') and all transactional dimensions. The LMX-7 scale showed high quality relationships between leaders and employees. CONCLUSIONS: This 180° analysis of GPs' leadership skills with self and employee ratings indicated good relationships. There is a potential to improve leadership regarding goal-setting, innovation and focusing on individual team members. These results allow for the development of targeted interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012677. Registered 16 October 2019.

Leadership program with skills training for general practitioners was highly accepted without improving job satisfaction: the cluster randomized IMPROVEjob study.

Leadership has become an increasingly important issue in medicine as leadership skills, job satisfaction and patient outcomes correlate positively. Various leadership training and physician psychological well-being programmes have been developed internationally, yet no standard is established in primary care. The IMPROVEjob leadership program was developed to improve job satisfaction among German general practitioners and practice personnel. Its acceptance and effectiveness were evaluated. The IMPROVEjob intervention is a participatory, interdisciplinary and multimodal leadership intervention that targets leadership, workflows and communication in general practices using three elements: (1) two leadership workshops with skills training; (2) a toolbox with printed and online material, and (3) a 9-month implementation phase supported by facilitators. A cluster-randomised trial with a waiting-list control evaluated the effectiveness on the primary outcome job satisfaction assessed by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (range 0-100). A mixed-methods approach with questionnaires and participant interviews evaluated the acceptance of the intervention and factors influencing the implementation of intervention content. Statistical analyses respected the clustered data structure. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated intervention adjustments: online instead of on-site workshops, online material instead of facilitator practice visits. Overall, 52 of 60 practices completed the study, with altogether 70 practice leaders, 16 employed physicians, and 182 practice assistants. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, job satisfaction decreased between baseline and follow-up (not significantly) in the total study population and in both study arms, while the subgroup of practice leaders showed a non-significant increase. A mixed multilevel regression model showed no effect of the intervention on job satisfaction (b = - 0.36, p > 0.86), which was influenced significantly by a greater sense of community (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). The acceptance of the IMPROVEjob workshops was high, especially among practice leaders compared to assistants (1 = best to 5 = worst): skills training 1.78 vs. 2.46, discussions within the practice team 1.87 vs. 2.28, group discussions 1.96 vs. 2.21. The process evaluation revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic complicated change processes and delayed the implementation of intervention content in practice routines. The workshops within the participatory IMPROVEjob intervention were rated very positively but the multimodal intervention did not improve job satisfaction 9 months into the pandemic. Qualitative data showed an impairment of implementation processes by the unforeseeable COVID pandemic.Trial registration Registration number: DRKS00012677 on 16/10/2019.

Higher Work-Privacy Conflict and Lower Job Satisfaction in GP Leaders and Practice Assistants Working Full-Time Compared to Part-Time: Results of the IMPROVEjob Study.

Background: Work-privacy conflict (WPC) has become an important issue for medical professionals. The cluster-randomized controlled IMPROVEjob study aimed at improving job satisfaction (primary outcome), with additional outcomes such as examining the work-privacy conflict in German general practice personnel. Using baseline data of this study, the relationship between work-privacy conflict and job satisfaction (JS) was analyzed. In addition, factors associated with higher WPC were identified. Methods: At baseline, 366 participants (general practitioners (GPs) in leadership positions, employed general practitioners, and practice assistants) from 60 German practices completed a questionnaire addressing socio-demographic data and job characteristics. Standardized scales from the German version of the COPSOQ III requested data concerning job satisfaction and work-privacy conflict. Both scores range from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). Multilevel analysis accounted for the clustered data. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS and RStudio software, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: Job satisfaction was 77.16 (mean value; SD = 14.30) among GPs in leadership positions (n = 84), 79.61 (SD = 12.85) in employed GPs (n = 28), and 72.58 (SD = 14.42) in practice assistants (n = 254). Mean values for the WPC-scale were higher for professionals with more responsibilities: GPs in leadership positions scored highest with 64.03 (SD = 29.96), followed by employed physicians (M = 45.54, SD =30.28), and practice assistants (M = 32.67, SD = 27.41). General practitioners and practice assistants working full-time reported significantly higher work-privacy conflict than those working part-time (p < 0.05). In a multilevel analysis, work-privacy conflict was significantly associated with job satisfaction (p < 0.001). A multiple regression analysis identified working hours, as well as and being a practice owner or an employed physician as factors significantly influencing WPC. Discussion: WPC was high among general practice leaders and practice personnel working full-time. Future interventions to support practice personnel should focus on reducing WPC, as there is good evidence of its effects on job satisfaction.