Do Work Condition Interventions Affect Quality and Errors in Primary Care? Results from the Healthy Work Place Study.

BACKGROUND: While primary care work conditions are associated with adverse clinician outcomes, little is known about the effect of work condition interventions on quality or safety. DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial of 34 clinics in the upper Midwest and New York City. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians and their diabetic and hypertensive patients. INTERVENTIONS: Quality improvement projects to improve communication between providers, workflow design, and chronic disease management. Intervention clinics received brief summaries of their clinician and patient outcome data at baseline. MAIN MEASURES: We measured work conditions and clinician and patient outcomes both at baseline and 6-12 months post-intervention. Multilevel regression analyses assessed the impact of work condition changes on outcomes. Subgroup analyses assessed impact by intervention category. KEY RESULTS: There were no significant differences in error reduction (19 % vs. 11 %, OR of improvement 1.84, 95 % CI 0.70, 4.82, p = 0.21) or quality of care improvement (19 % improved vs. 44 %, OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.58, 1.21, p = 0.42) between intervention and control clinics. The conceptual model linking work conditions, provider outcomes, and error reduction showed significant relationships between work conditions and provider outcomes (p ≤ 0.001) and a trend toward a reduced error rate in providers with lower burnout (OR 1.44, 95 % CI 0.94, 2.23, p = 0.09). LIMITATIONS: Few quality metrics, short time span, fewer clinicians recruited than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Work-life interventions improving clinician satisfaction and well-being do not necessarily reduce errors or improve quality. Longer, more focused interventions may be needed to produce meaningful improvements in patient care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT02542995.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of Interventions to Improve Work Conditions and Clinician Burnout in Primary Care: Results from the Healthy Work Place (HWP) Study.

BACKGROUND: Work conditions in primary care are associated with physician burnout and lower quality of care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess if improvements in work conditions improve clinician stress and burnout. SUBJECTS: Primary care clinicians at 34 clinics in the upper Midwest and New York City participated in the study. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized controlled trial. MEASURES: Work conditions, such as time pressure, workplace chaos, and work control, as well as clinician outcomes, were measured at baseline and at 12-18 months. A brief worklife and work conditions summary measure was provided to staff and clinicians at intervention sites. INTERVENTIONS: Diverse interventions were grouped into three categories: 1) improved communication; 2) changes in workflow, and 3) targeted quality improvement (QI) projects. ANALYSIS: Multilevel regressions assessed impact of worklife data and interventions on clinician outcomes. A multilevel analysis then looked at clinicians whose outcome scores improved and determined types of interventions associated with improvement. RESULTS: Of 166 clinicians, 135 (81.3%) completed the study. While there was no group treatment effect of baseline data on clinician outcomes, more intervention clinicians showed improvements in burnout (21.8% vs 7.1% less burned out, p = 0.01) and satisfaction (23.1% vs 10.0% more satisfied, p = 0.04). Burnout was more likely to improve with workflow interventions [Odds Ratio (OR) of improvement in burnout 5.9, p = 0.02], and with targeted QI projects than in controls (OR 4.8, p = 0.02). Interventions in communication or workflow led to greater improvements in clinician satisfaction (OR 3.1, p = 0.04), and showed a trend toward greater improvement in intention to leave (OR 4.2, p = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: We used heterogeneous intervention types, and were uncertain how well interventions were instituted. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations may be able to improve burnout, dissatisfaction and retention by addressing communication and workflow, and initiating QI projects targeting clinician concerns.

Prevalence and correlates of stress and burnout among U.S. healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has put extraordinary stress on healthcare workers. Few studies have evaluated stress by worker role, or focused on experiences of women and people of color. METHODS: The "Coping with COVID" survey assessed US healthcare worker stress. A stress summary score (SSS) incorporated stress, fear of exposure, anxiety/depression and workload (Omega 0.78). Differences from mean were expressed as Cohen's d Effect Sizes (ESs). Regression analyses tested associations with stress and burnout. FINDINGS: Between May 28 and October 1, 2020, 20,947 healthcare workers responded from 42 organizations (median response rate 20%, Interquartile range 7% to 35%). Sixty one percent reported fear of exposure or transmission, 38% reported anxiety/depression, 43% suffered work overload, and 49% had burnout. Stress scores were highest among nursing assistants, medical assistants, and social workers (small to moderate ESs, p < 0.001), inpatient vs outpatient workers (small ES, p < 0.001), women vs men (small ES, p < 0.001), and in Black and Latinx workers vs Whites (small ESs, p < 0.001). Fear of exposure was prevalent among nursing assistants and Black and Latinx workers, while housekeepers and Black and Latinx workers most often experienced enhanced meaning and purpose. In multilevel models, odds of burnout were 40% lower in those feeling valued by their organizations (odds ratio 0.60, 95% CIs [0.58, 0.63], p< 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Stress is higher among nursing assistants, medical assistants, social workers, inpatient workers, women and persons of color, is related to workload and mental health, and is lower when feeling valued.