West, Colin P.

Background There has been limited research on the positive aspects of physician wellness and to our knowledge there have been no validity studies on measures of resilience and grit among internal medicine (IM) residents. Objectives To investigate the validity of resilience (10 items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10)) and grit (Short Grit Scale (GRIT-S)) scores among IM residents at a large academic centre, and assess potential associations with previously validated measures of medical knowledge, clinical performance and professionalism. Methods We evaluated CD-RISC 10 and GRIT-S instrument scores among IM residents at the Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota between July 2017 and June 2019. We analysed dimensionality, internal consistency reliability and criterion validity in terms of relationships between resilience and grit, with standardised measures of residents’ medical knowledge (in-training examination (ITE)), clinical performance (faculty and peer evaluations and Mini-Clinical Evaluation Examination (mini-CEX)) and professionalism/dutifulness (conference attendance and evaluation completion). Results A total of 213 out of 253 (84.2%) survey-eligible IM residents provided both CD-RISC 10 and GRIT-S survey responses. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) was excellent for CD-RISC 10 (0.93) and GRIT-S (0.82) overall, and for the GRIT subscales of consistency of interest (0.84) and perseverance of effort (0.71). CD-RISC 10 scores were negatively associated with ITE percentile (β=−3.4, 95% CI −6.2 to −0.5, p=0.02) and mini-CEX (β=−0.2, 95% CI −0.5 to −0.02, p=0.03). GRIT-S scores were positively associated with evaluation completion percentage (β=2.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.67, p=0.02) and conference attendance (β=2.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 5.29, p=0.04). Conclusions This study revealed favourable validity evidence for CD-RISC 10 and GRIT-S among IM residents. Residents demonstrated resilience within a competitive training environment despite less favourable test performance and grittiness that was manifested by completing tasks. This initial validity study provides a foundation for further research on resilience and grit among physicians in training.

ABSTRACT Background: There is a high prevalence of burnout among health care professionals, but little remains known about burnout and satisfaction with work–life integration (WLI) among advance practice nurses (APNs). Purpose: To evaluate burnout and satisfaction with WLI among APNs compared with other US workers. Methods: A national sample of APNs and a probability-based sample of US workers completed a survey that measured burnout and satisfaction with WLI. Results: Of the 976 (47%) APNs who completed the survey 64% had high personal accomplishment, 36.6% had symptoms of overall burnout, and 60.6% were satisfied with their WLI. In multivariable analysis, work hours (for each additional hour odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.04, p < .001) and working in an outpatient setting (overall p = .03; referent hospital: outpatient, OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.17–2.18; other/unknown, OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.90–2.22, p = .13) were independently associated with having higher odds of burnout. Work hours were also independently associated with lower odds of satisfaction with WLI (for each additional hour OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.94–0.95, p < .001). Advance practice nurses were not more likely to have burnout or have greater struggles with WLI than other workers. Implications for practice: Findings from this study suggest APNs have high levels of personal accomplishment and a favorable occupational health profile. Advance practice nurses do not appear at higher risk of burnout or dissatisfaction with WLI than other US workers.

Purpose To evaluate the relationship between help-seeking concerns and attitudes and burnout among residents. Method In 2019, all residents across the 4 Mayo Clinic sites were surveyed. The survey included 2 items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory, an item from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication about likelihood of seeking professional help for a serious emotional problem, and items developed to explore residents’ help-seeking behaviors and concerns. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted for each outcome variable and included age, gender, specialty, postgraduate year, site, and burnout. Results Of the 1,146 residents to whom surveys were sent, 762 (66.5%) responded. Nearly half (342/747, 45.8%) were concerned about negative consequence to their career if they went on medical leave, and one-third (247/753, 32.8%) were reluctant to seek professional help for a serious emotional concern. Of the 437 residents who had never attended a personal health appointment during scheduled work, 34.6% (151) thought it would be difficult to tell a supervising physician they needed to miss work due to a scheduled appointment. On multivariable analysis, burnout was independently associated with reporting it would be difficult to tell a supervising physician of a need to attend an appointment (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46, 3.67; P < .001), being concerned about negative consequence to their career if they went on medical leave (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.49, 2.93; P < .001), and reluctance to seek professional care for a serious emotional problem (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17, 2.34; P = .004). Conclusions Barriers to self-care and help-seeking are common among residents and may be worse among those with burnout. Strategies to reduce stigma and promote a culture of well-being are needed.

AbstractObjectiveSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT‐PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID‐19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID‐19 research as well as corresponding implications of false‐negative and false‐positive results for clinicians and investigators.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses–Scoping Review (PRISMA‐ScR)–adherent synthesis of COVID‐19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020.ResultsA total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID‐19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID‐19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID‐19 patients. rRT‐PCR is currently considered the COVID‐19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false‐negatives rRT‐PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID‐19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT‐PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID‐19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID‐19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID‐19.ConclusionsWith the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID‐19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS‐CoV‐2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT‐PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus‐based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false‐negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

Purpose To explore the relationship between residents’ perceptions of residency program leadership team behaviors and resident burnout and satisfaction. Method In February 2019, the authors surveyed all residents across the 77 graduate medical education training programs at Mayo Clinic’s multiple sites. Survey items measured residents’ perceptions of program director and associate program director behaviors (using a composite residency program leadership team score), resident burnout, and resident satisfaction with the program and organization. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships between these variables at the individual resident (adjusting for age, sex, postgraduate training year, program location, and specialty) and program (including only programs with at least 5 respondents) levels. Results Of the 1,146 residents surveyed, 762 (66.5%) responded. At the individual resident level, higher composite leadership team scores were associated with lower emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and higher overall satisfaction with the residency program and organization (all P < .001). In adjusted logistic regression models, each 1-point gain in composite leadership team score was associated with 9% lower odds of burnout, 20% higher odds of program satisfaction, and 19% higher odds of satisfaction with the organization (all P < .001). At the residency program level, higher mean composite leadership team scores were associated with a lower rate of burnout (r = −0.35, P = .03) and higher program and organization satisfaction (r = 0.67 and 0.74, respectively, both P < .001). Conclusions The behaviors of residency program leadership teams influence residents’ burnout and satisfaction. Additional studies are needed to determine if leadership training results in improved resident well-being and satisfaction.

Purpose To explore the interaction between practice setting (academic practice [AP], private practice [PP]) and gender in relation to physician burnout and satisfaction with work–life integration (WLI). Method In 2017, the authors administered a cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians and characterized rates of burnout and satisfaction with WLI using previously validated and/or standardized tools. They conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine the interaction between the included variables. Results Of the 3,603 participants in the final analysis, female physicians reported a higher prevalence of burnout than male physicians in both AP (50.7% vs 38.2%, P < .0001) and PP (48.1% vs 40.7%, P = .001). However, the multivariable analysis found no statistically significant gender-based differences in burnout (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.17, P = .60). Women and men in AP were less likely to report burnout than men in PP (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.94, P = .01 and OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P < .01, respectively); women in PP did not report different burnout rates from men in PP (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.16, P = .38). Women in both AP and PP were less likely to be satisfied with WLI than men in PP (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47–0.83, P < .01 and OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.97, P = .03, respectively); men in AP did not report different satisfaction with WLI than men in PP (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82–1.33, P = .71). Conclusions Gender differences in rates of burnout are related to practice setting and other differences in physicians’ personal and professional lives. These results highlight the complex relationships among gender, practice setting, and other personal and professional factors in their influence on burnout and satisfaction with WLI.