Development and Implementation of a Clinician-Educator Track for Residents in Anesthesiology.

Background: Clinician-educators in academic settings have often had no formal training in teaching or in giving feedback to trainees. We implemented a Clinician-Educator Track within the Department of Anesthesiology with the initial goal of improving teaching skills through a didactic curriculum and experiential opportunities for a broad audience of faculty, fellows, and residents. We then assessed our program for feasibility and effectiveness. Methods: We developed a 1-year curriculum focusing on adult learning theory, evidence-based best teaching practices in different educational settings, and giving feedback. We recorded the number of participants and their attendance at monthly sessions. The year culminated in a voluntary observed teaching session using an objective assessment rubric to structure feedback. Participants in the Clinician-Educator Track then evaluated the program through anonymous online surveys. Qualitative content analysis of the survey comments was performed using inductive coding to generate relevant categories and identify the main themes. Results: There were 19 participants in the first year of the program and 16 in the second year. Attendance at most sessions remained high. Participants appreciated the flexibility and design of scheduled sessions. They very much enjoyed the voluntary observed teaching sessions to practice what they had learned throughout the year. All participants were satisfied with the Clinician-Educator Track, and many participants described changes and improvements in their teaching practices due to the course. Conclusions: The implementation of a novel, anesthesiology-specific Clinician-Educator Track has been feasible and successful, with participants reporting improved teaching skills and overall satisfaction with the program.

Satisfaction, Stress, and Turnover: Comparing U.S. Intensivist Physicians Before and During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Pandemic.

To evaluate changes in work satisfaction, work-life balance (WLB) satisfaction, stress, and turnover intention among U.S. critical care physicians during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic of 2021-2022 compared with prepandemic levels in 2016. DESIGN: A cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: Critical care practices in the United States. SUBJECTS: U.S. physician members of the Society for Critical Care Medicine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,148 intensivists completed online surveys administered in two waves: in 2016 (693 respondents) and in the late 2021 to early 2022 (455 respondents). They reported demographic and practice characteristics, self-perceived levels of satisfaction, stress, health, and intention to leave their current job. U.S.-based critical care physicians in 2022 report significantly lower levels of job satisfaction compared with 2016. Frequency of work stress and turnover intention also increased, whereas WLB satisfaction has remained the same. Nearly two-thirds of intensivists wish they could work fewer hours, and this discontentment is correlated with decreased satisfaction, increased stress, and increased turnover, particularly in pandemic respondents. More than 25% of physicians rated their mental health as poor or fair, and 20% rated their physical health as poor or fair; these self-ratings correlated with decreased satisfaction and increased stress and turnover intention. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has further burdened an already-strained critical care workforce. During the pandemic, job satisfaction fell, work stress became more frequent, and turnover intention increased for critical care physicians. They also have consistently low rates of WLB satisfaction. Work hours matter the most for physician satisfaction, stress, and turnover intention, and the desire to work fewer hours is negatively related to all outcomes. Many critical care physicians reported poor mental and physical health during the pandemic, which is strongly and negatively related to all outcomes. These results emphasize the importance of prioritizing the working preferences and the self-care of intensivist physicians.

Moral Distress in Clinicians Caring for Critically Ill Patients Who Require Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: Although use of mechanical circulatory support is increasing, it is unclear how providing such care affects clinicians' moral distress. OBJECTIVE: To measure moral distress among intensive care unit clinicians who commonly care for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support. METHODS: In this prospective study, the Moral Distress Scale-Revised was administered to physicians, nurses, and advanced practice providers from 2 intensive care units in an academic medical center. Linear regression was used to assess whether moral distress was associated with clinician type, burnout, or desire to leave one's job. Clinicians' likelihood of reporting frequent moral distress when caring for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support vs other critically ill patients also was assessed. RESULTS: The sample comprised 102 clinicians who had a mean (SD) score of 100.5 (51.6) on the Moral Distress Scale- Revised. After adjustment for clinician characteristics, moral distress was significantly higher in registered nurses than physicians/advanced practice providers (115.9 vs 71.0, P < .001), clinicians reporting burnout vs those who did not (114.7 vs 83.1, P = .003), and those considering leaving vs those who were not (121.1 vs 89.2, P = .001). Clinicians were more likely to report experiencing frequent moral distress when caring for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (26.5%) than when caring for patients needing routine care (10.8%; P = .004), but less likely than when caring for patients with either chronic critical illness (57.8%) or multisystem organ failure (56.9%; both P < .001). CONCLUSION: Moral distress was high among clinicians who commonly care for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support, suggesting that use of this therapy may affect well-being among intensive care unit clinicians.

Do residency applicants know what the ACGME core competencies are? One program's experience.

PURPOSE: To determine the degree of knowledge that medical students applying to the St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center anesthesiology residency program had regarding the core physician competencies mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. METHOD: As a part of the department's annual resident-selection process, in the fall of 2008, 193 interviewed fourth-year U.S. MD-degree medical students applying to the St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center anesthesiology program were given a brief, written questionnaire to determine their knowledge of the six core physician competencies. The instructions for completing the instrument were standardized and delivered to the applicants by one of the program directors. RESULTS: A total of 193 applicants completed the interview questionnaire. Seventy-six had no knowledge of any of the physician competencies, and only three were able to correctly identify all six. CONCLUSIONS: While this research is an observation of only one set of applicants to one residency program, if the findings are applicable to other programs and specialties, that suggests that medical schools and residency program directors should develop methods for increasing competency awareness among medical students.