RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Little is known as to whether the effects of physician sex on patients' clinical outcomes vary by patient sex. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association between physician sex and hospital outcomes varied between female and male patients hospitalized with medical conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medicare claims data. PATIENTS: 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with medical conditions during 2016 to 2019 and treated by hospitalists. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were patients' 30-day mortality and readmission rates, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital-level averages of exposures (effectively comparing physicians within the same hospital). RESULTS: Of 458 108 female and 318 819 male patients, 142 465 (31.1%) and 97 500 (30.6%) were treated by female physicians, respectively. Both female and male patients had a lower patient mortality when treated by female physicians; however, the benefit of receiving care from female physicians was larger for female patients than for male patients (difference-in-differences, -0.16 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, -0.42 to 0.10 pp]). For female patients, the difference between female and male physicians was large and clinically meaningful (adjusted mortality rates, 8.15% vs. 8.38%; average marginal effect [AME], -0.24 pp [CI, -0.41 to -0.07 pp]). For male patients, an important difference between female and male physicians could be ruled out (10.15% vs. 10.23%; AME, -0.08 pp [CI, -0.29 to 0.14 pp]). The pattern was similar for patients' readmission rates. LIMITATION: The findings may not be generalizable to younger populations. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that patients have lower mortality and readmission rates when treated by female physicians, and the benefit of receiving treatments from female physicians is larger for female patients than for male patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Gregory Annenberg Weingarten, GRoW @ Annenberg.
Asunto(s)
Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Medicare , Readmisión del Paciente , Humanos , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Factores Sexuales , Anciano , Médicos Mujeres/estadística & datos numéricos , Médicos Hospitalarios , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Planes de Aranceles por ServiciosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The #MeToo movement raised global awareness about harassment in the workplace. Concerns were raised, however, that the movement may have unintendedly harmed women in academia by decreasing collaboration invitations from men in senior positions, who might be more reluctant to collaborate. OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether collaborations between first author women and last author men decreased after the #MeToo movement. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Names of first and last authors of 122,450 US review articles from the PubMed database published between 2014 and 2020. MAIN MEASURES: Change in the proportion of review articles with a first author woman and a last author man following the peak of the #MeToo movement in October 2017. Additionally, among review articles with a last author man, trends of women first authorship in the USA and Europe (control group) were compared. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 122,450 review articles with first and last authors from US institutions. Of 85,015 articles by a man last author, 37.5% (31,902) had a woman first author. In contrast, when the last author was a woman, the first author was also a woman in 53.6% of articles (20,078) (p<0.001 for difference). Among review articles with a last author man, there was no change in the proportion of articles with a woman first author before versus after the peak of the #MeToo movement (e.g., p=0.13 for difference between the 12 months following October 2017 compared to the pre-#Me-too period). Among European institutions, of 72,036 articles by a man last author, 43.4% (31,294) had a woman first author, higher than the proportion observed in the USA. Trends in collaboration between first author women and last author men were similar in the USA and Europe after the peak of the #MeToo movement (p=0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The #MeToo movement was not associated with a reduction in the rate of scientific review article authorship collaborations between first author women and last author men in the life sciences. These findings, if generalizable, suggest it is possible to promote accountability for harassment in the workplace without limiting decreases in collaboration.
Asunto(s)
Autoria , Responsabilidad Social , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios Observacionales como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The burden of clinical documentation in electronic health records (EHRs) has been associated with physician burnout. Numerous tools (e.g., note templates and dictation services) exist to ease documentation burden, but little evidence exists regarding how physicians use these tools in combination and the degree to which these strategies correlate with reduced time spent on documentation. OBJECTIVE: To characterize EHR note composition strategies, how these strategies differ in time spent on notes and the EHR, and their distribution across specialty types. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of physician-level measures of note composition and EHR use derived from Epic Systems' Signal data warehouse. We used k-means clustering to identify documentation strategies, and ordinary least squares regression to analyze the relationship between documentation strategies and physician time spent in the EHR, on notes, and outside scheduled hours. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 215,207 US-based ambulatory physicians using the Epic EHR between September 2020 and May 2021. MAIN MEASURES: Percent of note text derived from each of five documentation tools: SmartTools, copy/paste, manual text, NoteWriter, and voice recognition and transcription; average total and after-hours EHR time per visit; average time on notes per visit. KEY RESULTS: Six distinct note composition strategies emerged in cluster analyses. The most common strategy was predominant SmartTools use (n=89,718). In adjusted analyses, physicians using primarily transcription and dictation (n=15,928) spent less time on notes than physicians with predominant Smart Tool use. (b=-1.30, 95% CI=-1.62, -0.99, p<0.001; average 4.8 min per visit), while those using mostly copy/paste (n=23,426) spent more time on notes (b=2.38, 95% CI=1.92, 2.84, p<0.001; average 13.1 min per visit). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' note composition strategies have implications for both time in notes and after-hours EHR use, suggesting that how physicians use EHR-based documentation tools can be a key lever for institutions investing in EHR tools and training to reduce documentation time and alleviate EHR-associated burden.
Asunto(s)
Médicos , Humanos , Estudios Transversales , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Documentación , Análisis por ConglomeradosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Burnout has risen across healthcare workers during the pandemic, contributing to workforce turnover. While prior literature has largely focused on physicians and nurses, there is a need to better characterize and identify actionable predictors of burnout and work intentions across healthcare role types. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association of work overload with rates of burnout and intent to leave (ITL) the job in a large national sample of healthcare workers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study conducted between April and December 2020. SETTING: A total of 206 large healthcare organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses, other clinical staff, and non-clinical staff. MEASURES: Work overload, burnout, and ITL. RESULTS: The sample of 43,026 respondents (mean response rate 44%) was comprised of 35.2% physicians, 25.7% nurses, 13.3% other clinical staff, and 25.8% non-clinical staff. The overall burnout rate was 49.9% (56.0% in nursing, 54.1% in other clinical staff, 47.3% in physicians, and 45.6% in non-clinical staff; p < 0.001 for difference). ITL was reported by 28.7% of healthcare workers, with nurses most likely to report ITL (41.0%), followed by non-clinical staff (32.6%), other clinical staff (32.1%), and physicians (24.3%) (p < 0.001 for difference). The prevalence of perceived work overload ranged from 37.1% among physicians to 47.4% in other clinical staff. In propensity-weighted models, work overload was significantly associated with burnout (adjusted risk ratio (ARR) 2.21 to 2.90) and intent to leave (ARR 1.73 to 2.10) across role types. LIMITATIONS: Organizations' participation in the survey was voluntary. CONCLUSIONS: There are high rates of burnout and intent to leave the job across healthcare roles. Proactively addressing work overload across multiple role types may help with concerning trends across the healthcare workforce. This will require a more granular understanding of sources of work overload across different role types, and a commitment to matching work demands to capacity for all healthcare workers.
Asunto(s)
Agotamiento Profesional , COVID-19 , Médicos , Humanos , Intención , Estudios Transversales , Satisfacción en el Trabajo , COVID-19/epidemiología , Agotamiento Profesional/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Recursos Humanos , Atención a la SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been connected to excessive workload and physician burnout. Little is known about variation in physician experience with different EHRs, however. OBJECTIVE: To analyze variation in reported usability and satisfaction across EHRs. DESIGN: Internet-based survey available between December 2021 and October 2022 integrated into American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification process. PARTICIPANTS: ABFM-certified family physicians who use an EHR with at least 50 total responding physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported experience of EHR usability and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed the responses of 3358 physicians who used one of nine EHRs. Epic, athenahealth, and Practice Fusion were rated significantly higher across six measures of usability. Overall, between 10 and 30% reported being very satisfied with their EHR, and another 32 to 40% report being somewhat satisfied. Physicians who use athenahealth or Epic were most likely to be very satisfied, while physicians using Allscripts, Cerner, or Greenway were the least likely to be very satisfied. EHR-specific factors were the greatest overall influence on variation in satisfaction: they explained 48% of variation in the probability of being very satisfied with Epic, 46% with eClinical Works, 14% with athenahealth, and 49% with Cerner. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful differences exist in physician-reported usability and overall satisfaction with EHRs, largely explained by EHR-specific factors. User-centric design and implementation, and robust ongoing evaluation are needed to reduce physician burden and ensure excellent experience with EHRs.
Asunto(s)
Diversidad Cultural , Fuerza Laboral en Salud , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Atención a la Salud/organización & administración , Etnicidad , Femenino , Fuerza Laboral en Salud/normas , Fuerza Laboral en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Grupos Raciales , Facultades de Medicina/organización & administración , Facultades de Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
This Viewpoint looks at digital communication between patients and physicians, including approaches to provide adequate support for these efforts that balance patient needs with appropriate time investments from clinicians.
Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Correo ElectrónicoRESUMEN
Importance: Burnout is a self-reported job-related syndrome increasingly recognized as a critical factor affecting physicians and their patients. An accurate estimate of burnout prevalence among physicians would have important health policy implications, but the overall prevalence is unknown. Objective: To characterize the methods used to assess burnout and provide an estimate of the prevalence of physician burnout. Data Sources and Study Selection: Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE/PubMed, psycARTICLES, and psycINFO for studies on the prevalence of burnout in practicing physicians (ie, excluding physicians in training) published before June 1, 2018. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Burnout prevalence and study characteristics were extracted independently by 3 investigators. Although meta-analytic pooling was planned, variation in study designs and burnout ascertainment methods, as well as statistical heterogeneity, made quantitative pooling inappropriate. Therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Point or period prevalence of burnout assessed by questionnaire. Results: Burnout prevalence data were extracted from 182 studies involving 109â¯628 individuals in 45 countries published between 1991 and 2018. In all, 85.7% (156/182) of studies used a version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to assess burnout. Studies variably reported prevalence estimates of overall burnout or burnout subcomponents: 67.0% (122/182) on overall burnout, 72.0% (131/182) on emotional exhaustion, 68.1% (124/182) on depersonalization, and 63.2% (115/182) on low personal accomplishment. Studies used at least 142 unique definitions for meeting overall burnout or burnout subscale criteria, indicating substantial disagreement in the literature on what constituted burnout. Studies variably defined burnout based on predefined cutoff scores or sample quantiles and used markedly different cutoff definitions. Among studies using instruments based on the MBI, there were at least 47 distinct definitions of overall burnout prevalence and 29, 26, and 26 definitions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment prevalence, respectively. Overall burnout prevalence ranged from 0% to 80.5%. Emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment prevalence ranged from 0% to 86.2%, 0% to 89.9%, and 0% to 87.1%, respectively. Because of inconsistencies in definitions of and assessment methods for burnout across studies, associations between burnout and sex, age, geography, time, specialty, and depressive symptoms could not be reliably determined. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, there was substantial variability in prevalence estimates of burnout among practicing physicians and marked variation in burnout definitions, assessment methods, and study quality. These findings preclude definitive conclusions about the prevalence of burnout and highlight the importance of developing a consensus definition of burnout and of standardizing measurement tools to assess the effects of chronic occupational stress on physicians.
Asunto(s)
Agotamiento Profesional/epidemiología , Médicos/psicología , Desgaste por Empatía/epidemiología , Despersonalización/epidemiología , Humanos , Satisfacción en el Trabajo , Prevalencia , Encuestas y CuestionariosAsunto(s)
Atención a la Salud , Personal de Salud , Fuerza Laboral en Salud , Salud , Humanos , Recursos HumanosAsunto(s)
Medicina , Médicos Mujeres , Sexismo , Disciplinas de las Ciencias Biológicas , Agotamiento Profesional , Femenino , Historia del Siglo XX , Humanos , Renta , Liderazgo , Masculino , Medicina/organización & administración , Médicos/provisión & distribución , Médicos Mujeres/historia , Médicos Mujeres/psicología , Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Estados Unidos , Recursos HumanosRESUMEN
Importance: Medical students are at high risk for depression and suicidal ideation. However, the prevalence estimates of these disorders vary between studies. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation in medical students. Data Sources and Study Selection: Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, psycARTICLES, and psycINFO without language restriction for studies on the prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, or suicidal ideation in medical students published before September 17, 2016. Studies that were published in the peer-reviewed literature and used validated assessment methods were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Information on study characteristics; prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation; and whether students who screened positive for depression sought treatment was extracted independently by 3 investigators. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures: Point or period prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, or suicidal ideation as assessed by validated questionnaire or structured interview. Results: Depression or depressive symptom prevalence data were extracted from 167 cross-sectional studies (n = 116â¯628) and 16 longitudinal studies (n = 5728) from 43 countries. All but 1 study used self-report instruments. The overall pooled crude prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 27.2% (37â¯933/122â¯356 individuals; 95% CI, 24.7% to 29.9%, I2 = 98.9%). Summary prevalence estimates ranged across assessment modalities from 9.3% to 55.9%. Depressive symptom prevalence remained relatively constant over the period studied (baseline survey year range of 1982-2015; slope, 0.2% increase per year [95% CI, -0.2% to 0.7%]). In the 9 longitudinal studies that assessed depressive symptoms before and during medical school (n = 2432), the median absolute increase in symptoms was 13.5% (range, 0.6% to 35.3%). Prevalence estimates did not significantly differ between studies of only preclinical students and studies of only clinical students (23.7% [95% CI, 19.5% to 28.5%] vs 22.4% [95% CI, 17.6% to 28.2%]; P = .72). The percentage of medical students screening positive for depression who sought psychiatric treatment was 15.7% (110/954 individuals; 95% CI, 10.2% to 23.4%, I2 = 70.1%). Suicidal ideation prevalence data were extracted from 24 cross-sectional studies (n = 21â¯002) from 15 countries. All but 1 study used self-report instruments. The overall pooled crude prevalence of suicidal ideation was 11.1% (2043/21â¯002 individuals; 95% CI, 9.0% to 13.7%, I2 = 95.8%). Summary prevalence estimates ranged across assessment modalities from 7.4% to 24.2%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, the summary estimate of the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among medical students was 27.2% and that of suicidal ideation was 11.1%. Further research is needed to identify strategies for preventing and treating these disorders in this population.