Citations

Abstract Purpose To examine associations of social support and social isolation with burnout, program satisfaction, and organization satisfaction among a large population of U.S. residents and fellows and to identify correlates of social support and social isolation. Method All residents and fellows enrolled in graduate medical education programs at Mayo Clinic sites were surveyed in February 2019. Survey items measured social support (emotional and tangible), social isolation, burnout, program satisfaction, and organization satisfaction. Factors of potential relevance to social support were collected (via the survey, institutional administrative records, and interviews with program coordinators and/or program directors) and categorized as individual, interpersonal, program, or work-related factors (duty hours, call burden, elective time, vacation days used before survey administration, required away rotations, etc.). Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to examine relationships between variables. Results Of 1,146 residents surveyed, 762 (66%) from 58 programs responded. In adjusted models, higher emotional and tangible support were associated with lower odds of burnout and higher odds of program and organization satisfaction, while higher social isolation scores were associated with higher odds of burnout and lower odds of program satisfaction and organization satisfaction. Independent predictors of social support and/or social isolation included age, gender, relationship status, parental status, postgraduate year, site, ratings of the program leadership team, ratings of faculty relationships and faculty professional behaviors, satisfaction with autonomy, and vacation days used before survey administration. Conclusions This study demonstrates that social support and social isolation are strongly related to burnout and satisfaction among residents and fellows. Personal and professional relationships, satisfaction with autonomy, and vacation days are independently associated with social support and/or social isolation, whereas most program and work-related factors are not. Additional studies are needed to determine if social support interventions targeting these factors can improve well-being and enhance satisfaction with training.

Purpose To determine if bedside rounds, compared with other forms of hospital ward rounds, improve learning outcomes in medical education. Method For this systematic review, the authors searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception through February 20, 2020. Experimental studies were included if they (1) compared bedside rounds to any other form of rounds in a hospital-based setting, and (2) reported a quantitative comparison of a learning outcome (e.g., learner reaction, knowledge, skills, behavior, health care delivery) among physicians-in-training (medical students, residents, fellows). Extraction elements were summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of design, implementation, and outcomes. Results Twenty studies met inclusion criteria, including 7 randomized trials. All studies involved resident physicians, and 11 also involved medical students. The design and implementation of bedside rounds varied widely, with most studies (n = 13) involving cointerventions (e.g., staff education, real-time order entry). Of the 15 studies that reported learner satisfaction, 7 favored bedside rounds, 4 favored the control, and 4 were equivocal. Of the 4 studies reporting an outcome of learners’ knowledge and skills, 2 favored bedside rounds and 2 were equivocal. Of the 8 studies that reported on learner behavior (e.g., bedside communication with patients), 5 favored bedside rounds, 1 favored the control, and 2 were equivocal. Finally, of the 14 studies that reported a health care delivery outcome (e.g., teamwork, rounding time), 8 favored bedside rounds and 6 were equivocal. Due to the high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity across studies, the overall strength of evidence was low. Conclusions In hospital-based settings, learners’ satisfaction with bedside rounds is mixed. However, bedside rounds appear to have a positive effect on learner behavior and health care delivery. Given their potential value, additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of educationally successful bedside rounds.

Background: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of resistance training (RT) on survival and other cardiovascular outcomes including ischemic heart disease events and stroke. Methods: An experienced librarian searched databases up to September 25 th , 2017, for randomized trials and cohort studies that evaluated the effect of RT on survival and cardiovascular events in the general population. The databases included Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Two investigators conducted the screening process independently and in duplicate. Cochrane tools were used to assess the risk of bias in clinical trials and observational studies. We calculated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using RevMan and fixed and random effect models and had a subgroup analysis based on doses of RT and for the combination of RT and aerobic exercise (AE) vs no exercise. Results: The search identified 1429 studies from which 10 (one randomized trial) met the inclusion criteria, including 338,254 participants with a mean follow up of 8.14 years. The meta-analysis showed that RT, in comparison with no exercises, is associated with 24% lower all-cause mortality and 48% lower mortality when combined with AE. Based on subgroup analysis, performing 1-2 sessions of RT/week is associated with lower all-cause mortality by 28% (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.78) whereas > 5 sessions of RT/week has no association with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.31). Further, RT alone or combined with AE is associated with lower CV mortality compared to no exercise (Figures). Finally, RT alone also showed a borderline association with lower all-cancer mortality. Heterogeneity was present for several comparisons, and subsequent analysis will explore sources of this variability. Using study design-specific Cochrane risk of bias tools, no major sources of bias were identified in the included studies. One cohort study looked at the effect of RT on coronary heart disease events and found 23% risk reduction in men, while no study specifically assessed the effect of RT on cerebrovascular outcomes. Conclusion: RT is associated with lower all-cause, CV and all-cancer mortality. RT appears to have an additive effect when combined with AE.

Abstract Objectives To measure nurse-perceived electronic health records (EHR) usability with a standardized metric of technology usability and evaluate its association with professional burnout. Methods A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of US nurses was conducted in November 2017. EHR usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS; range 0–100) and burnout with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Results Among the 86 858 nurses who were invited, 8638 (9.9%) completed the survey. The mean nurse-rated EHR SUS score was 57.6 (SD 16.3). A score of 57.6 is in the bottom 24% of scores across previous studies and categorized with a grade of “F.” On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, race, ethnicity, relationship status, children, highest nursing-related degree, mean hours worked per week, years of nursing experience, advanced certification, and practice setting, nurse-rated EHR usability was associated with burnout with each 1 point more favorable SUS score and associated with a 2% lower odds of burnout (OR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99; P < .001). Conclusions Nurses rated the usability of their current EHR in the low marginal range of acceptability using a standardized metric of technology usability. EHR usability and the odds of burnout were strongly associated with a dose-response relationship.