Telehealth: Reducing Patients' Greenhouse Gas Emissions at One Academic Psychiatry Department.

OBJECTIVE: Academic and organizational leaders in psychiatry and all other medical fields are negatively impacted by climate change. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a rapid shift to the use of more telehealth by behavioral health clinicians. The purpose of this study was to estimate the reduction of patients' greenhouse gas emissions during this rapid shift at one academic psychiatry institution. METHODS: The authors extracted data associated with all outpatient visits to all 26 psychiatry clinics from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Once the patients' travel miles saved by confirmed virtual visits were calculated, the authors used the standard ratio from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to calculate the total quantity of CO2 that would be emitted if the visits had occurred in person. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 47,582 outpatient behavioral health visits with 3975 unique patients were completed. The majority of these departmental visits were telehealth (85%), with most of the telehealth visits conducted using real-time audio-video platforms (75.7%). Subtracting emissions from patient technology during telehealth visits from the estimated patient transport values produced a net savings of greenhouse gas emissions of 867,011 kg CO2. This amount is equal to the greenhouse gas emissions from 189 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year according to the EPA. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that converting in person, face-to-face behavioral health visits to telehealth has the potential to increase both energy efficiency and conservation through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to reduced patient travel. If these values were extrapolated to the total adult US population who have visits for behavioral health reasons, we estimate that conversion to virtual visits could save approximately 830,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. Organizational leaders should consider these societal benefits when making decisions regarding development and support of telehealth.

Taking Care of Our Own: A Multispecialty Study of Resident and Program Director Perspectives on Contributors to Burnout and Potential Interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Rates of resident physician burnout range from 60 to 76 % and are rising. Consequently, there is an urgent need for academic medical centers to develop system-wide initiatives to combat burnout in physicians. Academic psychiatrists who advocate for or treat residents should be familiar with the scope of the problem and the contributors to burnout and potential interventions to mitigate it. We aimed to measure burnout in residents across a range of specialties and to describe resident- and program director-identified contributors and interventions. METHODS: Residents across all specialties at a tertiary academic hospital completed surveys to assess symptoms of burnout and depression using the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, respectively. Residents and program directors identified contributors to burnout and interventions that might mitigate its risk. Residents were asked to identify barriers to treatment. RESULTS: There were 307 residents (response rate of 61 %) who completed at least one question on the survey; however, all residents did not respond to all questions, resulting in varying denominators across survey questions. In total, 190 of 276 residents (69 %) met criteria for burnout and 45 of 263 (17 %) screened positive for depression. Program directors underestimated rates of burnout, with only one program director estimating a rate of 50 % or higher. Overall residents and program directors agreed that lack of work-life balance and feeling unappreciated were major contributors. Forty-two percent of residents reported that inability to take time off from work was a significant barrier to seeking help, and 25 % incorrectly believed that burnout is a reportable condition to the medical board. CONCLUSIONS: Resident distress is common and most likely due to work-life imbalance and feeling unappreciated. However, residents are reluctant to seek help. Interventions that address work-life balance and increase access to support are urgently needed in academic medical centers.

Strategies utilized to prevent and control SARS-CoV-2 transmission in two congregate, psychiatric healthcare settings during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial effect on the delivery of psychiatric health care. Inpatient psychiatric health care facilities have experienced outbreaks of COVID-19, making these areas particularly vulnerable. METHODS: Our facility used a multidisciplinary approach to implement enhanced infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions in our psychiatric health care areas. RESULTS: In a 16-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic, our 2 facilities provided >29,000 patient days of care to 1,807 patients and identified only 47 COVID-19 positive psychiatric health inpatients (47/1,807, or 2.6%). We identified the majority of these cases by testing all patients at admission, preventing subsequent outbreaks. Twenty-one psychiatric health care personnel were identified as COVID+ during the same period, with 90% linked to an exposure other than a known positive case at work. DISCUSSION: The IPC interventions we implemented provided multiple layers of safety for our patients and our staff. Ultimately, this resulted in low SARS-CoV-2 infection rates within our facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric health care facilities are uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks because they are congregate units that promote therapeutic interactions in shared spaces. IPC interventions used in acute medical care settings can also work effectively in psychiatric health care, but often require modifications to ensure staff and patient safety.