Best Practices: Burnout Is More Than Binary.

Burnout among radiologists is increasingly prevalent, with potential for substantial negative impact on physician well-being, care delivery, and health outcomes. To evaluate this phenomenon using reliable and accurate means, validated quantitative instruments are essential. Variation in measurement can contribute to wide-ranging findings. This article evaluates radiologist burnout rates globally and dimensions of burnout as reported using different validated instruments and provide guidance on best practices to characterize burnout. Fifty-seven studies between 1990 and 2023 were included in a systematic review, and 43 studies were included in a meta-analysis of burnout prevalence using random effects models. Reported burnout ranged from 5% to 85%. With the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), burnout prevalence varied significantly depending on instrument version. Among MBI subcategories, the prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 54% (95% CI, 45-63%), depersonalization was 52% (95% CI, 41-63%), and low personal accomplishment was 36% (95% CI, 27-47%). Other validated burnout instruments showed less heterogeneous results; studies using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index yielded burnout prevalence of 39% (95% CI, 34-45%), whereas the Validated Single-Item instrument yielded 34% (95% CI, 29-39%). Standardized instruments for prevalence alongside multidimensional profiles capturing experiences may better characterize radiologist burnout, including change over time.

Evaluation of Socioeconomic Disparities in Follow-Up Completion for Incidental Pulmonary Nodules.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between census tract-level measures of social vulnerability and residential segregation and incidental pulmonary nodule (IPN) follow-up. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with IPNs ≥6 mm in size or multiple subsolid or ground-glass IPNs <6 mm (with nonoptional follow-up recommendations) diagnosed between January 1, 2018, and December 30, 2019, at a large urban tertiary center and followed for ≥2 years. Geographic sociodemographic context was characterized by the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the index of concentration at the extremes (ICE), categorized in quartiles. Multivariable binomial regression models were used, with a primary outcome of inappropriate IPN follow-up (late or no follow-up). Models were also stratified by nodule risk. RESULTS: The study consisted of 2,492 patients (mean age, 65.6 ± 12.6 years; 1,361 women). Top-quartile SVI patients were more likely to have inappropriate follow-up (risk ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.36) compared with the bottom quartile; risk was also elevated in top-quartile SVI subcategories of socioeconomic status (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.34), Minority status and language (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48), housing and transportation (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), and ICE (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Furthermore, top-quartile ICE was associated with greater risk for inappropriate follow-up among high-risk versus lower risk IPNs (RR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.18-1.50] versus 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.25]), respectively; P for interaction = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Local social vulnerability and residential segregation are associated with inappropriate IPN follow-up and may inform policy or interventions tailored for neighborhoods.

Sensitivity and specificity of patient-entered red flags for lower back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Red flags are questions typically ascertained by providers to screen for serious underlying spinal pathologies. The utility of patient-reported red flags in guiding clinical decision-making for spine care, however, has not been studied. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the sensitivity and specificity of patient-reported red flags in predicting the presence of serious spinal pathologies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective nested case-control study. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study consisted of 120 patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for spinal pathologies and 380 randomly selected patients, from a population of 4,313 patients seen at a large tertiary care spine clinic between October 9, 2013 and June 30, 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence of patient-reported red flags and red flags obtained from medical records was verified for chart review. The spinal pathology (ie, malignancy, fractures, infections, or cauda equina syndrome) was noted for each patient. METHODS: The sensitivity and specificity of patient-reported red flags for detecting serious spinal pathologies were calculated from data obtained from the 500 patients. Youden's J was used to rank performance. Agreement between patient-reported red flags and those obtained from medical record review was assessed via Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: "History of cancer" was the best performing patient-reported red flag to identify malignancy (sensitivity=0.75 [95% confidence intervals, CI 0.53-0.90], specificity=0.79 [95% CI 0.75-0.82]). The best performing patient-reported red flag for fractures was the presence of at least one of the following: "Osteoporosis," "Steroid use," and "Trauma" (sensitivity=0.59 [95% CI 0.44-0.72], specificity=0.65 [95% CI 0.60-0.69]). The prevalence of infection and cauda equina diagnoses was insufficient to gauge sensitivity and specificity. Red flags from medical records had better performance than patient-reported red flags. There was poor agreement between patient red flags and those obtained from medical record review. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported red flags had low sensitivity and specificity for identification of serious pathologies. They should not be used in insolation to make treatment decisions, although they may be useful to prompt further probing to determine if additional investigation is warranted.