Burnout and Appreciation: A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Preferences for Appreciation Among Oncology Clinicians.

PURPOSE: Feeling appreciated is related to increased well-being/reduced burnout. We developed a health care-specific appreciation assessment for clinicians, exploring what impactful appreciation looks like and whether it differs across a diverse provider population. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted with a diverse oncology clinician population in academic medicine as part of a general well-being survey. A total of 28 different methods of appreciation were assessed for their impact on feeling appreciated. RESULTS: A total of 405 clinicians participated (response rate, 58%). No single method of appreciation showed high/low impact for everyone, although seven methods received high impact ratings from 60% or more, including inclusion in decision making (76%), private words of affirmation (64%), positive feedback about skills (63%), positive comments about clinical care from patients/families (62%), efforts to reduce daily frustrations (62%), signs of trust in medical skills (62%), and time for self-care (62%). The least impactful methods of appreciation describe public expression of accomplishments, leadership rounding, and awards but each still receive a rating of moderate/high impact from 33% of participants. CONCLUSION: Appreciation comes from many different places and takes on multiple forms, suggesting that making healthcare workers (HCWs) feel valued takes the efforts of colleagues, leaders, the system as well as patients. There exists no one perfect way of showing appreciation, and no one method is meaningless for all. The impact on feeling valued is primarily a function of the specific appreciation method and not the demographic/personal characteristics of the recipient. The findings highlight modifiable factors that-when intervened upon-can reduce burnout and address organization-level determinants of burnout impactfully.

Implementing Digital Scribes to Reduce Electronic Health Record Documentation Burden Among Cancer Care Clinicians: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To address shortcomings of human scribes (eg, turnover), clinicians are considering digital scribes (DSs). To our knowledge, to date, no study has assessed DS implementation or clinician user experience in cancer centers. We assessed the DS's feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, usability and its preliminary association on clinician well-being in a cancer center. We also identified implementation facilitators and barriers to DS use. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study design, we implemented a DS at a cancer center. Data collection included surveys at baseline and 1 month after DS use and a semistructured interview with clinicians. The survey assessed demographics, Mini Z (workplace stress and burnout), sleep quality, and implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and usability). The interview assessed how the DS was used and its impacts on workflows and recommendations for future implementations of the DS. We used paired t tests to assess differences in Mini Z and sleep quality measures over time. RESULTS: Across nine survey responses and eight interviews, we found that although feasibility scores were slightly lower than our cutoff point (15.2 v 16.0), clinicians rated the DS as marginally acceptable (16.0) and appropriate (16.3). Usability was considered marginally usable (68.6 v 68.0). Although the DS did not significantly improve burnout (3.6 v 3.9, P = .081), it improved perceptions of having sufficient documentation time (2.1 v 3.6, P = .005). Clinicians identified suggestions for future implementations, including training needs and usability improvements. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary findings suggest that DS implementation is marginally acceptable, appropriate, and usable among cancer care clinicians. Individualized training and on-site support may improve implementation.