Burnout in Surgical Residents of Underrepresented in Medicine Backgrounds: Key Influencing Factors and Possible Solutions.

INTRODUCTION: Alarming rates of burnout in surgical training pose a concern due to its deleterious effects on both patients and providers. Datum remains lacking on rates of burnout in surgical residents based on race and ethnicity. This study aims to document the frequency of burnout in surgical residents of racially underrepresented backgrounds and elucidate contributing factors. METHODS: A 35-question anonymized survey was distributed to general surgery residents from 23 programs between August 2018 and May 2019. This survey was designed from the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, and included additional questions assessing participant demographics, educational, and social backgrounds. Responses were analyzed utilizing chi-square tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. There was also a free response portion of the survey which was evaluated using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We received 243 responses from 23 general surgery programs yielding a 9% (23/246) program response rate and 26% (243/935) response rate by surgical residents. One hundred and eighty-five participants (76%) identified as nonunderrepresented in medicine and 58 (24%) of participants identified as underrepresented in medicine. Fifty-three percent were male and 47% female. Overall, sixty-six percent of all surgical residents (n = 161) endorsed burnout with racially underrepresented residents reporting higher rates of burnout at 76% compared to 63% in their nonunderrepresented counterparts (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Although the generalizability of these results is limited, higher rates of reported burnout in racially underrepresented trainees noted in our study illuminates the need for continual dialogue on potential influencing factors and mitigation strategies.

A novel bioassay for human somatogenic activity in serum samples supports the clinical reliability of immunoassays.

OBJECTIVE: Because there is discordance between different immunoassay values for serum hGH, and because clinical state may not correlate with immunoreactive hGH, we have developed an assay to accurately measure serum hGH somatogenic bioactivity. The results of this assay were compared with the Elegance two-site ELISA assay across 135 patient samples in a variety of clinical states. DESIGN: The somatogenic assay was based on stable expression of hGH receptor in the murine BaF line, allowing these cells to proliferate in response to hGH. To eliminate interference by other growth factors in serum, we created a specific antagonist of the hGH receptor (similar to Trovert or Pegvisomant) which allowed us to obtain a true measure of hGH somatogenic activity by subtraction of the activity in the presence of the antagonist. The assay was carried out in microtiter plates over 24 h, with oxidation of a chromogenic tetrazolium salt (MTT) as the endpoint. PATIENTS: These encompassed a number of different clinical conditions related to short stature, including idiopathic short stature, neurosecretory dysfunction and renal failure, as well as obese patients on dietary restriction and normal volunteers. MEASUREMENTS: In addition to the colourimetric (MTT) response to hGH, we measured free hGH by stripping out GHBP-bound hGH using beads coupled to a monoclonal antibody to the GHBP (GH binding protein). All samples were measured in both bioassay and ELISA assay. RESULTS: This bioassay was sensitive (5 mU/l or 2 microg/l) and precise, and not subject to interference by the GHBP. There was a good correlation (r = 0.95) between bioactivity and immunoactivity across clinical states. There was, however, an increased bioactivity during secretory peaks (over 25 mU/l), which has been reported previously for the Nb2 bioassay. Free hGH did not correlate with clinical state. CONCLUSIONS: Because the results of the Elegance ELISA and the bioassay correlate well, even though there is greater bioactivity at higher hormone concentrations, it is evident that an appropriate immunoassay is able to act as a reliable indicator for clinical assessment. In those rare cases where bio-inactive GH exists, our bioassay should provide an appropriate means to demonstrate this.