Changes in Stress and Workplace Shortages Reported by U.S. Critical Care Physicians Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved. DESIGN: We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTION: Irrelevant. MEASUREMENT: Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.

Opportunities for Maintenance of Certification to Better Reflect Scope of Practice Among Medical Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Critics argue that the American Board of Internal Medicine's medical oncology Maintenance of Certification examination requires medical oncologists with a narrow scope of practice to spend time studying material that is no longer relevant to their practice. However, no data are available describing the scope of practice for medical oncologists. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we examined the scope of practice for 9,985 medical oncologists who saw 8.6 million oncology conditions in 2016, each of which was assigned to 1 of 23 different condition groups. Scope of practice was then measured as the percentage of oncology conditions within each of the 23 groups. We grouped physicians with similar scopes of practice by applying K-means clustering to the percentage of conditions seen. The scope of practice for each physician cluster was determined from the cancers that encompassed the majority of average oncology conditions seen among physicians composing the cluster. RESULTS: We found 20 distinct scope-of-practice clusters. The largest (n = 6,479 [65.5%]) had a general oncology scope of practice. The remaining physicians focused on a narrow scope of cancers, including 22.6% focused on ≥ 1 solid tumors and 11.9% focused on hematologic malignancies. The largest focused cluster accounted for 7.7% of physicians focused on breast cancer. CONCLUSION: A single American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification assessment in medical oncology is most appropriate for approximately 65% of certified medical oncologists' practices. However, the addition of assessments focused on breast cancer and hematologic malignancies could increase this figure to upwards of 85% of certified medical oncologists.

Do State Continuing Medical Education Requirements for Physicians Improve Clinical Knowledge?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of state continuing medical education (CME) requirements on physician clinical knowledge. DATA SOURCES: Secondary data for 19,563 general internists who took the Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination between 2006 and 2013. STUDY DESIGN: We took advantage of a natural experiment resulting from variations in CME requirements across states over time and applied a difference-in-differences methodology to measure associations between changes in CME requirements and physician clinical knowledge. We measured changes in clinical knowledge by comparing initial and MOC examination performance 10 years apart. We constructed difference-in-differences estimates by regressing examination performance changes against physician demographics, county and year fixed effects, trend-state indicators, and state CME change indicators. DATA COLLECTION: Physician data were compiled by the American Board of Internal Medicine. State CME policies were compiled from American Medical Association reports. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: More rigorous CME credit-hour requirements (mostly implementing a new requirement) were associated with an increase in examination performance equivalent to a shift in examination score from the 50th to 54th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians required to engage in a summative assessment of their clinical knowledge, CME requirements were associated with an improvement in physician clinical knowledge.

Tailored telephone education to promote awareness and adoption of fruit and vegetable recommendations among urban and mostly immigrant black men: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable (FV) intake in black men are far below national recommendations. METHODS: Urban, primarily immigrant, black men (n=490) from the New York City metropolitan area participating in the Cancer Awareness and Prevention (CAP) Trial (2005-2007) were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups: 1) FV Education (FVE) or 2) Prostate Education (PE). Both interventions entailed a mailed brochure plus two tailored telephone education (TTE) calls. Outcomes, measured at baseline and at eight months, included knowledge of FV recommendations, perceived benefits, stage of readiness to adopt recommendations and self-reported FV consumption. RESULTS: At follow-up, the FVE group consumed an average of 1.2 more FV servings per day than the PE group (P<0.001; adjusted for baseline). The FVE group also demonstrated increases in knowledge about recommended FV amounts (P<0.01) and appropriate serving sizes (P<0.05), and in the percent of participants moving from a lower to a higher stage of readiness to adopt FV recommendations (P<0.05). The FVE group did not demonstrate increases in knowledge related to the importance of eating a colorful variety or in the ability to name potential health benefits. CONCLUSIONS: TTE can be a practical and moderately effective intervention for raising awareness of FV recommendations and for promoting FV consumption in urban and primarily immigrant black men.

Knowledge, barriers, and stage of change as correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption among urban and mostly immigrant black men.

BACKGROUND: Daily fruit and vegetable consumption in black men is low and has remained relatively unchanged during the past 20 years. OBJECTIVE: To examine awareness of fruit and vegetable recommendations promoted by federal agencies and correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption among an urban and mostly immigrant population of adult black men. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study analyzing baseline data (n=490) from a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A large health care worker's union. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge, perceived benefits, stage of readiness, perceived barriers, and daily servings of fruit and vegetable intake. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: One-way analysis of variance and t tests were used to compare fruit and vegetable intake across main study variables. Regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of fruit and vegetable intake. RESULTS: Fruit and vegetable intake was low (mean was three servings/day). Ninety-four percent were not aware that men should consume at least nine servings of fruits and vegetables daily and 59.8% were not aware that eating a colorful variety is important. In contrast, over half (54.7%) were aware that a single serving is equal to about a handful; 94.1% correctly reported fruit and vegetables as an important source of fiber; 79.6% correctly reported vitamin pills were not a substitute for eating fruits and vegetables; and 94.5% recognized that there are health benefits to eating fruits and vegetables, although identification of specific benefits was minimal. In regression analysis, a greater level of fruit and vegetable consumption was significantly associated with greater knowledge of fruit and vegetable recommendations, lower perceived barriers, and a more advanced stage of change (action vs contemplation/preparation). Perceived health benefits were not associated with fruit and vegetable consumption. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of awareness of the current fruit and vegetable recommendations. In addition, men reported fruit and vegetable intakes that were far below national recommendations. Greater efforts are needed to help urban and primarily immigrant black men realize the importance of and recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption.