Resident worklife and wellness through the late phase of the pandemic: a mixed methods national survey study.

BACKGROUND: System contributors to resident burnout and well-being have been under-studied. We sought to determine factors associated with resident burnout and identify at risk groups. METHODS: We performed a US national survey between July 15 2022 and April 21, 2023 of residents in 36 specialties in 14 institutions, using the validated Mini ReZ survey with three 5 item subscales: 1) supportive workplace, 2) work pace/electronic medical record (EMR) stress, and 3) residency-specific factors (sleep, peer support, recognition by program, interruptions and staff relationships). Multilevel regressions and thematic analysis of 497 comments determined factors related to burnout. RESULTS: Of 1118 respondents (approximate median response rate 32%), 48% were female, 57% White, 21% Asian, 6% LatinX and 4% Black, with 25% PGY 1 s, 25% PGY 2 s, and 22% PGY 3 s. Programs included internal medicine (15.1%) and family medicine (11.3%) among 36 specialties. Burnout (found in 42%) was higher in females (51% vs 30% in males, p = 0.001) and PGY 2's (48% vs 35% in PGY-1 s, p = 0.029). Challenges included chaotic environments (41%) and sleep impairment (32%); favorable aspects included teamwork (94%), peer support (93%), staff support (87%) and program recognition (68%). Worklife subscales were consistently lower in females while PGY-2's reported the least supportive work environments. Worklife challenges relating to burnout included sleep impairment (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 2.82 (95% CIs 1.94, 4.19), absolute risk difference (ARD) in burnout 15.9%), poor work control (aOR 2.25 (1.42, 3.58), ARD 12.2%) and chaos (aOR 1.73 (1.22, 2.47), ARD 7.9%); program recognition was related to lower burnout (aOR 0.520 (0.356, 0.760), ARD 9.3%). These variables explained 55% of burnout variance. Qualitative data confirmed sleep impairment, lack of schedule control, excess EMR and patient volume as stressors. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a nomenclature and systematic method for addressing well-being during residency. Work conditions for females and PGY 2's may merit attention first.

Work Environment, Burnout, and Intent to Leave Current Job Among Cardiologists and Cardiology Health Care Workers: Results From the National Coping With COVID Survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors contributing to burnout and intent to leave in cardiologists and other cardiology health care workers. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Coping With COVID survey assessed work conditions, burnout, and intent to leave among physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and other clinical staff (OCS) from April 2020 to December 2020. Single-item measures assessed work conditions, burnout (emotional exhaustion), and intent to leave. Multilevel logistic regression examined work life variables' relationships to burnout among role types and feeling valued as a mediator. Open-ended comments analyzed via grounded theory contributed to a conceptual model. Coping With COVID was completed by 1199 US cardiology health care workers (354 physician/520 nurses/198 advanced practice providers/127 OCS). Nurses were most likely to report burnout (59% nurses, 57% OCS, 46% advanced practice providers, 40% physicians, P<0.0001). Workload correlated with burnout in all groups (adjusted odds ratios [aORs], 4.1-17.4; Ps<0.005), whereas anxiety/depression related to burnout in all except OCS (aORs, 3.9-8.3; Ps≤0.001). Feeling valued was related to lower burnout in most groups. Intent to leave was common (23%-45%) and was lower in physicians and advanced practice providers who felt valued (aORs, 0.26 and 0.22, respectively; Ps<0.05). Burnout was highest for nurses in practice 16 to 20 years, and intent to leave was highest for OCS in practice 16 to 20 years. Themes contributing to burnout included personal and patient safety, leadership, and financial issues. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was prevalent among cardiology health care workers and highest in nurses and OCS. Addressing factors associated with burnout in different role types may improve work life sustainability for all cardiology health care workers.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: What do the current USPSTF guidelines say?

The 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation notes that the decision to initiate daily aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be made on a case-by-case basis for adults ages 40 to 59 with a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk. The recommendation applies to those without signs or symptoms of clinically evident CVD who are not at an increased risk of bleeding. Clinicians are encouraged to use their judgment in weighing the risks and benefits of aspirin therapy, while taking patient preference into account for patients ages 40 to 60.