Support, technology and mental health: correlates of trainee workplace satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION: Low physician workplace satisfaction may negatively impact patient care. Dissatisfaction may begin during residency training, where trainees face lower autonomy and less control over work conditions. The theoretical and empirical literature on trainees is couched mainly in terms of burnout. Theories of satisfaction, a different construct, are derived from studies of independent physicians. Identifying specific correlates of trainee satisfaction may be a clearer path to preparing a sustainable physician workforce. METHODS: We surveyed 3300 residents and fellows (response rate of 7.2% to 46,574 surveys sent) across multiple specialties and institutions in the US. The instrument was adapted from a previous large-scale survey of physician satisfaction, with changes reflecting factors theorized to specifically affect trainee satisfaction. We applied generalized linear regression to identify correlates of higher satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1444 (44%) residents/fellows reported they were very satisfied and 1311 (40%) reported being somewhat satisfied. Factors associated with satisfaction included positive perceptions of supporting clinical staff, the electronic health record, and stability of personal mental health. Surprisingly, a strong negative perception of completing insurance and/or disability forms was also associated with higher satisfaction. Factors often presumed to correlate with satisfaction, such as duty hours, debt load, and specialty, did not show significant associations. DISCUSSION: Multiple workplace factors are correlated with trainee satisfaction, but they are not the factors (such as financial debt) that we initially hypothesized. The factors we identified, including clinical staff support and personal mental health, may be targets for further study and/or pilot interventions aimed at improving satisfaction.

Does intensive care unit severity of illness influence recall of baseline physical function?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate if severity of illness in the intensive care unit influences patients' retrospective recall of their baseline physical function from before hospital admission. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of 193 acute lung injury survivors who, before hospital discharge, retrospectively reported their prehospitalization physical function using the Short Form 36 quality of life survey. RESULTS: Four measures were used to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) severity of illness: (1) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Acute Physiologic Score at ICU admission, (2) Lung Injury Score at acute lung injury diagnosis, (3) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at study enrollment, and (4) maximum daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score during the entire ICU stay. In multivariable linear regression analysis, no measure of severity of illness was associated with prehospitalization physical function. Education level significantly modified the relationship between ICU severity of illness and baseline physical function with lower educational attainment having a stronger association with baseline physical function. CONCLUSION: Intensive care unit severity of illness was not associated with patients' retrospectively recalled baseline physical function. Patients with a lower level of education may be more influenced by ICU severity of illness, but the magnitude of this effect may not be clinically meaningful.

A prospective, open-label study of Aripiprazole mono- and adjunctive treatment in acute bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole treatment for acute bipolar depression. METHODS: A six-week prospective, nonrandomized, open label study was conducted in depressed bipolar outpatients (types I, II, and NOS), as diagnosed by DSM-IV criteria. Previous treatments were continued unchanged, and new treatments not permitted, except lorazepam up to 2 mg daily. Aripiprazole was dosed flexibly up to a maximum of 30 mg daily, based on tolerability and efficacy. Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Mania Rating Scale (MRS) scores were used to assess changes in mood symptoms. Side effect outcomes were measured. Data was analyzed using last observation carried forward methodology and Analysis of Variance. RESULTS: Twenty patients (15 men, 5 women) with bipolar disorder (10 type I, 7 type II, 3 type NOS) enrolled in the study. Mean endpoint dose was 13.6 mg/d+/-10.0 mg/d. Thirteen (65%) patients completed 6 weeks of treatment. MADRS and MRS scores significantly improved during treatment. 44% of patients who completed at least one week of treatment were considered responders, based on > or =50% decrease in MADRS scores from baseline. Side effect measures were mostly unchanged during treatment. CONCLUSION: Depressive symptoms improved in bipolar patients treated with open-label aripiprazole.

Divalproex in the treatment of acute bipolar depression: a preliminary double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of divalproex (extended release) in the treatment of acute nonrefractory bipolar depression. METHOD: In a stratified, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 18 acutely depressed bipolar outpatients (DSM-IV criteria) received either divalproex monotherapy (target dose level, 70-90 ng/dL) (N = 9) or placebo (N = 9) for 6 weeks. Patients were recruited between January 2004 and May 2005. Clinical assessment on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) determined primary efficacy. RESULTS: The divalproex treatment group showed significantly greater reduction in MADRS scores compared to placebo (group x time interaction, p = .0078). Absolute effect size of estimated MADRS total score reduction over time was 13.6 points with divalproex versus 1.4 points with placebo (p = .003, linear growth curve model). Standardized effect size was large (Cohen d = 0.81). MADRS item analyses demonstrated improvement in core mood symptoms more than in anxiety or insomnia symptoms. There was also a modest but significant association between MADRS and Mania Rating Scale scores in the divalproex group (r = 0.29, df = 51, p = .03), but not in the placebo group (r = -0.15, df = 35, p = .36). CONCLUSIONS: Divalproex appeared to be an effective treatment for acute nonrefractory bipolar depression, which is consistent with previous small randomized studies. Some evidence of benefit in the depressive mixed state was observed. Confirmation or refutation with larger randomized clinical trials is warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00226343.