Drivers of Burnout Among Critical Care Providers: A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Critical care practitioners have some of the highest levels of burnout in health care. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are key drivers of burnout across the multidisciplinary ICU team? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter mixed-methods cohort study in ICUs at three diverse hospitals. We recruited physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other staff members who worked primarily in an ICU. Participants completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel (MBI) and a qualitative focus group or interview using a phenomenologic approach. MBI subscales for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment were calculated. Emergent shared themes contributing to burnout were identified from qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Fifty-eight providers (26 physicians, 22 nurses, six respiratory therapists, three pharmacists, and one case manager) participated. Ten participants (17.9%) described their burnout as moderate to high. However, participants scored moderate or high levels across the three MBI subscales (emotional exhaustion, 71.4%; depersonalization, 53.6%; and lack of personal achievement, 53.6%). Drivers of burnout aligned with three core themes: patient factors, team dynamics, and hospital culture. Individual drivers included medically futile cases, difficult families, contagiousness of burnout, lack of respect between team members, the increasing burden of administrative or regulatory requirements at the cost of time with patients, lack of recognition from hospital leadership, and technology. All were highly interconnected across the three larger domains. Despite differences in MBI scores, most provider types described very similar drivers of burnout. INTERPRETATION: High levels of burnout were identified through the MBI, but participants did not self-report high levels of burnout, suggesting a lack of awareness. Drivers of burnout were highly interconnected, but factors related to team dynamics and hospital culture were most prominent and shared across provider types. The shared drivers of burnout across multiple provider types highlights the need for interventions focused on team- and system-level drivers.

Pilot Randomized Trial of a Recovery Navigator Program for Survivors of Critical Illness With Problematic Alcohol Use.

Many survivors of critical illness have problematic alcohol use, associated with risk of death and hospital readmission. We tested the feasibility, acceptability, treatment fidelity, and potential efficacy of a customized alcohol intervention for patients in ICUs. The intervention was delivered by a Recovery Navigator using principles of motivational interviewing and shared decision-making. DESIGN: Pilot randomized trial. SETTING: Two urban ICUs in Denver, CO. PATIENTS: Patients with problematic alcohol use were enrolled prior to hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to usual care, single-session motivational interviewing and shared decision-making, or multisession motivational interviewing and shared decision-making. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed feasibility via enrollment and attrition, acceptability via patient satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8), fidelity via observation and questionnaires, and potential efficacy via group means and CIs on measures of alcohol use, psychiatric symptoms, cognition, and other alcohol-related problems. Over 18 months, we offered the study to 111 patients, enrolled 47, and randomized 36; refusals were mainly due to stigma or patients' desire to handle problems on their own. Groups were similar at baseline, and 67% of patients met criteria for alcohol use disorder. Average patient satisfaction was high (mean = 28/32) regardless of group assignment. Sessions were delivered with 98% adherence to motivational interviewing principles and excellent motivational interviewing spirit; patients perceived the intervention to be more autonomy supportive than usual care. Group means after 6 months suggested that patients receiving the intervention might improve on measures such as alcohol use, psychiatric symptoms, legal problems, and days of paid work; however, they did not receive more substance use treatment. All results were nonsignificant due to small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: A Recovery Navigator intervention was feasible and acceptable for delivering high-fidelity brief interventions to ICU patients. Changes in alcohol-related problems with motivational interviewing and shared decision-making were nonsignificant but clinically meaningful in size. A full-scale randomized trial of motivational interviewing and shared decision-making is warranted.