Physician work intensity among medical specialties: emerging evidence on its magnitude and composition.

BACKGROUND: Similarities and differences in physician work intensity among specialties are poorly understood but have implications for quality of care, patient safety, practice organization and management, and payment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude and important dimensions of physician work intensity for 4 specialties. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional assessment of work intensity associated with actual patient care in the examination room or operating room. SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of 45 family physicians, 20 general internists, 22 neurologists, and 21 surgeons, located in Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Virginia. MEASURES: Work intensity measures included the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), Subjective Work Assessment Technique (SWAT), and Multiple Resource Questionnaire. Stress was measured by the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire. RESULTS: Physicians reported similar magnitude of work intensity on the NASA-TLX and Multiple Resource Questionnaire. On the SWAT, general internists reported work intensity similar to surgeons but significantly lower than family physicians and neurologists (P=0.035). Surgeons reported significantly higher levels of task engagement on the stress measure than the other specialties (P=0.019), significantly higher intensity on physical demand (P < 0.001), and significantly lower intensity on the performance dimensions of the NASA-TLX than the other specialties (P=0.003). Surgeons reported the lowest intensity for temporal demand of all specialties, being significantly lower than either family physicians or neurologists (P=0.014). Family physicians reported the highest intensity on the time dimension of the SWAT, being significantly higher than either general internists or surgeons (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Level of physician work intensity seems to be similar among specialties.

Paul B. Beeson career development awards in aging research and U.S. medical schools aging and geriatric medicine programs.

Established in 1995, the Paul B. Beeson Career Development program provides faculty development awards to outstanding junior and midcareer faculty committed to academic careers in aging-related research, training, and practice. This study evaluated the effect of 134 Beeson Scholars on their medical schools' aging and geriatric medicine programs and on the field of aging research from 1995 to 2007. Quantitative and qualitative survey data from multiple sources, including the American Geriatrics Society/Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs' Geriatrics Workforce Policy Studies Center, National Institutes of Health (NIH) rankings of research funding, and other governmental databases were used to compare 36 medical schools with Beeson Scholars with 34 similar medical schools without Beeson scholars and to examine the influence of Beeson Scholars on the field of geriatrics and aging. Most Beeson Scholars remained at the institution where they trained during their Beeson award, and 89% are still practicing or conducting research in the field of geriatrics and aging. Twenty-six (19.4%) of the scholars have led institutional research mentoring awards, 51 (39%) report leadership roles in institutional program project grants, and 13 (10%) report leadership roles in the Clinical and Translational Science Award programs at their institutions. Beeson Scholars are more likely than a matched sample of non-Beeson NIH K awardees to study important geriatric syndromes such as falls, cognitive impairment, adverse drug events, osteoporosis, and functional recovery from illness. Total Beeson Impact Years (the total number of years all Beeson Scholars have worked at each school) is positively correlated with more geriatrics research faculty, after controlling for NIH funding rank (P=.02). Beeson Scholars have made positive contributions to the development of academic geriatrics research programs at U.S. medical schools.