A cross-sectional study of the interrelationship between burnout, empathy and resilience in academic physicians.

Burnout is a growing concern, with significant negative consequences for physicians and patient care. Burnout is negatively associated with physician empathy, while resilience may be a protective factor against the development of burnout but few studies have examined all three constructs in the same cohort. Understanding the associations between these constructs could aid in the development of interventions for physicians experiencing burnout and improve the delivery of compassionate care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to determine levels of burnout, empathy and resilience in a sample of academic physicians and investigate the relationships between these variables. Validated scales were administered online to measure burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey, MBI-HSS), empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy - Physicians/Health Professions Version, JSE) and resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, CD-RISC). Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, and group comparisons were examined. Eighty-three physicians completed the JSE and CD-RISC, while a subset of 49 physicians also completed the MBI-HSS. Response rates were 31.9% and 18.8%, respectively. High burnout was reported by 49% of the sample. Physicians with high burnout reported lower levels of resilience than those who were not burnt-out. No differences in levels of empathy were observed between these two groups. Older physicians (>45 years) reported higher resilience scores than younger physicians. Resilience and empathy were significantly positively correlated. The reported rate of physician burnout in this sample of academic physicians is concerning, with burnout associated with lower levels of resilience. Further research is required to explore the relationship between physician age and resilience, the impact of resilience-building interventions on burnout and empathy in physicians, and how modifying these variables influences the delivery of compassionate care for patients.

When Feedback is Not Perceived as Feedback: Challenges for Regulatory Body-Mandated Peer Review.

PURPOSE: Safe and competent patient care depends on physicians recognizing and correcting performance deficiencies. Generating effective insight depends on feedback from credible sources. Unfortunately, physicians often have limited access to meaningful guidance. To facilitate quality improvement, many regulatory authorities have designed peer-facilitated practice enhancement programs. Their mandate to ensure practice quality, however, can create tension between formative intentions and risk (perceived or otherwise) of summative repercussions. This study explored how physicians engage with feedback when required to undergo review. METHOD: Between October 2018 and May 2020, 30 physicians representing various specialties and career stages were interviewed about their experiences with peer review in the context of regulatory body-mandated programs. Twenty had been reviewees and reviewers and, hence, spoke from both vantage points. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a 3-stage coding process informed by constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: Perceptions about the learning value of mandated peer review were mixed. Most saw value but felt anxiety about being selected due to being wary of regulatory bodies. Recognizing barriers such perceptions could create, reviewers described techniques for optimizing the value of interactions with reviewees. Their strategies aligned well with the R2C2 feedback and coaching model with which they had been trained but did not always overcome reviewees' concerns. Reasons included that most feedback was "validating," aimed at "tweaks" rather than substantial change. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes an intriguing and challenging paradox: feedback appears often to not be recognized as feedback when it poses no threat, yet feedback that carries such threat is known to be suboptimal for inducing performance improvement. In efforts to reconcile that tension, the authors suggest that peer review for individuals with a high likelihood of strong performance may be more effective if expectations are managed through feedforward rather than feedback.

The impact of Stress Management and Resailience Training (SMART) on academic physicians during the implementation of a new Health Information System: An exploratory randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Stress Management and Resilience Training (SMART) program is an evidence-based intervention designed to build resilience in physicians in clinical practice. The objective of the current study was to assess the impact of the SMART program on academic physicians' levels of resilience, subjective happiness, stress, and anxiety, and specifically during the implementation of a new hospital-wide Health Information System (HIS). METHODS: A total of 40 physicians in a tertiary care academic hospital were randomized (allocation ratio 1:1) to either the SMART intervention or the control condition. The SMART intervention consisted of one mandatory two-hour in-person workshop and an optional 24-week online program, designed to support the materials delivered in the workshop. Outcome measures were assessed using validated scales administered online at baseline and at 3-months and 6-months follow-up. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline levels of each outcome, no statistically significant intervention effect was observed for resilience, subjective happiness, stress or anxiety at 3-months or 6-months follow-up. However, physicians in the intervention group demonstrated improvements in resilience, stress and anxiety at follow-up that were within the range of clinically relevant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this exploratory study provide modest support that the SMART intervention may be beneficial for proactively addressing physician wellness during the implementation of a new HIS and that larger randomized trials are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04384861.