A national survey of 'inactive' physicians in the United States of America: enticements to reentry.

BACKGROUND: Physicians leaving and reentering clinical practice can have significant medical workforce implications. We surveyed inactive physicians younger than typical retirement age to determine their reasons for clinical inactivity and what barriers, real or perceived, there were to reentry into the medical workforce. METHODS: A random sample of 4975 inactive physicians aged under 65 years was drawn from the Physician Masterfile of the American Medical Association in 2008. Physicians were mailed a survey about activity in medicine and perceived barriers to reentry. Chi-square statistics were used for significance tests of the association between categorical variables and t-tests were used to test differences between means. RESULTS: Our adjusted response rate was 36.1%. Respondents were fully retired (37.5%), not currently active in medicine (43.0%) or now active (reentered, 19.4%). Nearly half (49.5%) were in or had practiced primary care. Personal health was the top reason for leaving for fully retired physicians (37.8%) or those not currently active in medicine (37.8%) and the second highest reason for physicians who had reentered (28.8%). For reentered (47.8%) and inactive (51.5%) physicians, the primary reason for returning or considering returning to practice was the availability of part-time work or flexible scheduling. Retired and currently inactive physicians used similar strategies to explore reentry, and 83% of both groups thought it would be difficult; among those who had reentered practice, 35.9% reported it was difficult to reenter. Retraining was uncommon for this group (37.5%). CONCLUSION: Availability of part-time work and flexible scheduling have a strong influence on decisions to leave or reenter clinical practice. Lack of retraining before reentry raises questions about patient safety and the clinical competence of reentered physicians.

Pediatric residency duty hours before and after limitations.

OBJECTIVES: The goals were to examine pediatric resident and program director experiences implementing the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education work hour limits and to compare duty hours, moonlighting, and fatigue before and after the limits became effective. METHODS: National random samples of 500 pediatric residents who graduated in 2002 and in 2004 were surveyed to compare resident duty hours and fatigue before and after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education limits were implemented. In addition, all US pediatric residency program directors were surveyed at the end of the 2003/2004 academic year, to provide a complementary retrospective examination of limit implementation. RESULTS: Totals of 65%, 61%, and 83% of 2002 residents, 2004 residents, and program directors, respectively, responded. The proportion of residents who reported working >80 hours per week declined from 49% for NICU/PICU rotations before the limits to 18% after limit implementation. Resident well-being was the factor identified most often by both residents and program directors as being improved since the limitations. Multivariate modeling also showed reductions in the proportions of residents who reported falling asleep while driving from work or making errors in patient care because of fatigue. Overall, 89% of pediatric residents and program directors reported that the current system is effective in ensuring appropriate working hours. CONCLUSIONS: Since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty hour limits went into effect, pediatric residents report working fewer hours and making fewer patient care errors because of fatigue. Although room for additional improvement remains, the experiences of residents and program directors suggest that implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education limits in pediatric residency programs is improving resident well-being.

The practice of clinical genetics: a survey of practitioners.

PURPOSE: A survey of clinical geneticists was undertaken to learn more about current practice. METHODS: An attempt was made to survey all geneticists practicing in the United States to elicit information on a variety of issues. RESULTS: A total of 69% of geneticists responded. Most practice at a medical school, most receive a portion of their income from salary, and many receive personal financial support from research grants. CONCLUSION: The specialty of medical genetics is primarily housed in tertiary care settings. Although a substantial amount of time is required to see patients, reimbursement for these services does not cover the costs to maintain such practices.

Practice of pediatric otolaryngology: results of the future of pediatric education II project.

OBJECTIVES: To define the practice of pediatric otolaryngology compared with general otolaryngology and to estimate pediatric otolaryngology workforce utilization and needs. METHODS: Survey of members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Otolaryngology and Bronchoesophagology and the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology and of a random sample of the membership of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. RESULTS: Pediatric otolaryngologists were more likely to practice in urban and/or academic settings than were general otolaryngologists. Children (age <18 years) comprised over 88% of the patients of pediatric otolaryngologists and 30% to 35% of the patients of general otolaryngologists. Pediatric otolaryngologists were more likely to see children with complicated diseases such as airway disorders or congenital anomalies than were general otolaryngologists. Pediatric otolaryngologists, unlike general otolaryngologists, reported an increasing volume of pediatric referrals, as well as increased complexity in the patients referred. The surveyed physicians estimated the present number of pediatric otolaryngologists in their communities as approximately 0.2 to 0.3 per 100 000 people. CONCLUSIONS: Most children receiving otolaryngologic care in the United States receive such care from general otolaryngologists. The patient profile and practice setting of the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology differ from those of general otolaryngology. The demand for pediatric otolaryngologists appears to be increasing, but many general otolaryngologists do not believe there is an increased need.