Burnout among public health workers in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study presents the prevalence of burnout among the Canadian public health workforce after three years of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with work-related factors. METHODS: Data were collected using an online survey distributed through Canadian public health associations and professional networks between November 2022 and January 2023. Burnout was measured using a modified version of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). Logistic regressions were used to model the relationship between burnout and work-related factors including years of work experience, redeployment to pandemic response, workplace safety and supports, and harassment. Burnout and the intention to leave or retire as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic was explored using multinomial logistic regressions. RESULTS: In 2,079 participants who completed the OLBI, the prevalence of burnout was 78.7%. Additionally, 49.1% of participants reported being harassed because of their work during the pandemic. Burnout was positively associated with years of work experience, redeployment to the pandemic response, being harassed during the pandemic, feeling unsafe in the workplace and not being offered workplace supports. Furthermore, burnout was associated with greater odds of intending to leave public health or retire earlier than anticipated. CONCLUSION: The high levels of burnout among our large sample of Canadian public health workers and its association with work-related factors suggest that public health organizations should consider interventions that mitigate burnout and promote recovery.

Clinicians' Perspectives After Implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations. Objective: To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020. Exposures: The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP. Results: Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

Feasibility and implementation of a healthy lifestyles program in a community setting in Ontario, Canada: protocol for a pragmatic mixed methods pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity are increasing in Canada and internationally. There are effective lifestyle interventions that are known to improve chronic conditions. However, there is often a gap in 'how to' make lifestyle changes. Mental health and other determinants of health play a role in the development and progression of chronic conditions. Changing habits takes time and requires the use of multiple techniques, including mental health and behavioural change strategies, based on a person's needs. A new, multidisciplinary, person-centred and evidence-based and practice-based programme has been created to address these needs. This proposal aims to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of this programme and to determine changes in participant-directed and clinical outcomes through a pilot study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic mixed methods design will be used to study multiple dimensions of the year-long healthy lifestyles programme. The pilot study includes a randomised controlled trial, with 30 participants randomised to either the programme or to a comparator arm, and qualitative components to determine the feasibility of the programme, including recruitment and retention, data missing rates and resources needed to run this programme. Changes in participant-directed and clinical outcomes will be measured. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for within group comparisons and generalised estimating equations for between group analyses will be used. Qualitative interviews of programme staff and healthcare providers and family focus groups will be used to further enhance the findings and improve the programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB) has been obtained. Informed consent will be obtained prior to enrolling any participant into the study. Participant IDs will be used during data collection and entry. Peer-reviewed publications and presentations will target researchers, health professionals and stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03258138.HiREB project number: 3793.