Prevalence of burnout, depression and job satisfaction among French senior and resident radiation oncologists.

PURPOSE: Cancer caregivers are at high risk of burn-out, with potential severe consequences on professionals' health and on patients' care. We have investigated the prevalence of burn-out and its impact in terms of psychological morbidity among French radiation oncologists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous online questionnaire was advertised in all French senior radiation oncologists and residents, including demographical data, job-related stress factors, drug use, the Maslach Burn-out Inventory (MBI) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). RESULTS: The response rates were 37% (76 out of 204) for radiation oncologists and 22% (166 out of 751) for residents. Sixty-four (84%) radiation oncology residents and 104 (63%) radiation oncologists met criteria for moderate/severe burn-out (odd ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.0-4.8], P=0.03). Radiation oncology residents were more prone to depersonalization (P<0.001) and lower personal accomplishment (P<0.001). Burn-out was more frequent in radiation oncologists working for public facilities. Symptoms of depression (GHQ-12≥4) were reported by 42% of residents and 36% of radiation oncologists (P=0.40). Psychological morbidity, suicidal ideation and anxiolytic consumption were more frequent in burnt out responders. CONCLUSION: Our figures are in the highest range of published data. Active screening and prevention of burn-out should be implemented and particularly aimed at radiation oncology residents.

Physician satisfaction with transition from CPOE to paper-based prescription.

INTRODUCTION: In January 2015, Rouen University Hospital's information system experienced serious issues. It was necessary to rapidly switch from the computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system towards a paper-based order entry (PBOE) system. This was an opportunity to evaluate prescriber opinion on the two provider order entry (POE) systems. METHODS: All residents were asked to fill an augmented version of the POE satisfaction and usage survey for both POE systems. The results were compared to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each system. RESULTS: Fifty-one respondents had used the CPOE system and the PBOE system. Overall, satisfaction was higher with PBOE than CPOE (odds ratio (OR)=3.74; p<0.001). Usability (OR=4.00; p<0.001), reliability (OR=8.54; p<0.001), time consumption (OR=0.50; p<0.05 - survey statement was formulated negatively), and communication with nurses (OR=14.27; p<0.0001) reached statistically better agreement. The more experience with CPOE the more residents were disillusioned with the reliability (OR=6.55; p<0.01), the usability (OR=5.68; p<0.01) and the patient safety (OR=0.27; p<0.05 - survey statement was formulated negatively) of CPOE. Although safety issues were reported for both systems, the causes were different; PBOE imposed frequent rewriting of the order while CPOE lack of usability might be unsafe. Another important issue with both POE systems was time consumption. CONCLUSION: Residents did not report any increase in safety issues with the rapid switch from CPOE to PBOE. They even seemed more satisfied with the rollback to paper, which remains a possible degraded mode in case of health information technology collapse.