Micheo, William

Background Physician burnout is of growing concern. Burnout among physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians has shown a significant increase, positioning PM&R as one of the most “burned out” of specialties. Little has been written about potential factors contributing to physiatrist burnout or potential interventions. Objective To determine the prevalence of burnout among physiatrists and identify risk factors for burnout and potential strategies to decrease burnout among physiatrists. Design Prospective cross‐sectional survey. Setting National survey of board certified physiatrists. Participants: One thousand five hundred thirty‐six physiatrists certified by the American Board of PM&R. Outcome The Mini‐Z Burnout Survey, 1 question from the Maslach Burnout Scale on callousness toward patients, and several potential drivers of burnout. The probability of burnout, identified by question 3 on the Mini‐Z, was the dependent variable. Other questions on the Mini‐Z were explored as independent variables using logistic regression. Results Seven hundred seventy physiatrists (50.7%) fulfilled the definition of burnout. Only 38% of physiatrists reported not becoming more callous toward patients. The top 3 causes of burnout identified by physiatrists were increasing regulatory demands, workload and job demands, and practice inefficiency and lack of resources. Higher burnout rate was associated with high levels of job stress and working more hours per week. Lower burnout rates were associated with higher job satisfaction, control over workload, professional values aligned with those of department leaders, and sufficient time for documentation. There was no significant association between burnout and sex, years in practice, practice focus, or practice area. Conclusion Burnout is a significant problem among PM&R physicians and is pervasive throughout the specialty. Opportunities exist to address major contributing drivers of burnout relating to practice patterns and efficiency of care within PM&R. These opportunities are, to varying degrees, under the control of hospital leaders, practice administrators, and practitioners.

AbstractBackgroundThere is a need to better understand the overall state of sub‐specialization in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R).ObjectiveTo examine the status and trends in subspecialty certification for each of the seven subspecialties approved for American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) diplomates.Design/SettingRetrospective analysis of deidentified information from the ABPMR database.ParticipantsPhysicians certified by ABPMR through 2019.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresFor each subspecialty, we examined: (1) the number of certificates issued to ABPMR diplomates; (2) the recertification rate; (3) the yearly trends for total active, new, and expired certificates; and (4) for ABPMR‐administered subspecialties, recertification rates for those entering the subspecialty through fellowship completion versus a “grandfathered” practice pathway.ResultsOf 11,421 ABPMR diplomates in the United States in 2019, a total of 3560 (31.2%) had 3985 active subspecialty certificates. Pain Medicine (PM) was the most common subspecialty certification (15.5% of all ABPMR diplomates) followed by Sports Medicine (SM, 6.6%), Brain Injury Medicine (BIM, 4.8%), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (SCIM, 4.2%), Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM, 2.5%), Neuromuscular Medicine (NMM, 0.7%), and Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM, 0.5%). For diplomates with more than one subspecialty certification, PM and SM was the most frequent combination. Both the recertification rate and the end of practice track eligibility influenced certification trends differently for individual subspecialties. The average number of new certificates added annually for every subspecialty was higher before than after the temporary practice track‐based eligibility ended; the difference was statistically significant (p < .05) for SCIM, PM, SM, and NMM. The recertification rate for all subspecialties combined was 73.4%. For the subspecialties (SCIM, PRM) for which these data were available, fellowship candidates had higher recertification rates than those grandfathered through a practice track.ConclusionThis report informs stakeholders about the state and evolution of subspecialty certification in PM&R over time.