Career

Women increased their representation in internal medicine residencies from 1991 to 2016, but a new analysis also shows that the percentage of women in subspecialty fellowships declined.

Women made up 43.2% of the internal medicine resident population in 2016, compared with 30.2% in 1991. Over that same time, however, the percentage of women in subspecialty fellowships dropped from 33.3% to 23.6%, Anna T. Stone, MD, and associates wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Many factors are associated with the decisions of medical students in choosing an internal medicine residency, including their sex, educational experience, views of patient care, and lifestyle perceptions. Similar considerations apply to subspecialty training,” wrote Dr. Stone of the department of cardiology at St. Vincent Hospital and Heart Center, Indianapolis, and associates.

When the investigators focused on a subset of nine internal medicine subspecialties, they saw growth: “The percentage of women entering each of the fields [residents plus fellows] increased over time, with variations between specialty and some year-to-year variations within a specialty.”

Although none of the nine subspecialties had been majority women in 1991, by 2016 women made up more than half of the residents and fellows in four: endocrinology (71.3%), geriatric medicine (67.9%), rheumatology (60.2%), and infectious disease (54.6%), according to data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

And then there’s cardiology. Its low rate of participation among women – the only one of the nine subspecialties under 35% – “is an important issue that the cardiology profession should continue to address,” they wrote.

In a survey of internal medicine residents conducted by other researchers, women were more likely than men to report that they had never considered cardiology as a career choice, Dr. Stone and associates noted, and women in the survey “had different perceptions of cardiology than men.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stone AT et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3833.

Women increased their representation in internal medicine residencies from 1991 to 2016, but a new analysis also shows that the percentage of women in subspecialty fellowships declined.

Women made up 43.2% of the internal medicine resident population in 2016, compared with 30.2% in 1991. Over that same time, however, the percentage of women in subspecialty fellowships dropped from 33.3% to 23.6%, Anna T. Stone, MD, and associates wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Many factors are associated with the decisions of medical students in choosing an internal medicine residency, including their sex, educational experience, views of patient care, and lifestyle perceptions. Similar considerations apply to subspecialty training,” wrote Dr. Stone of the department of cardiology at St. Vincent Hospital and Heart Center, Indianapolis, and associates.

When the investigators focused on a subset of nine internal medicine subspecialties, they saw growth: “The percentage of women entering each of the fields [residents plus fellows] increased over time, with variations between specialty and some year-to-year variations within a specialty.”

Although none of the nine subspecialties had been majority women in 1991, by 2016 women made up more than half of the residents and fellows in four: endocrinology (71.3%), geriatric medicine (67.9%), rheumatology (60.2%), and infectious disease (54.6%), according to data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

And then there’s cardiology. Its low rate of participation among women – the only one of the nine subspecialties under 35% – “is an important issue that the cardiology profession should continue to address,” they wrote.

In a survey of internal medicine residents conducted by other researchers, women were more likely than men to report that they had never considered cardiology as a career choice, Dr. Stone and associates noted, and women in the survey “had different perceptions of cardiology than men.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stone AT et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3833.

Women increased their representation in internal medicine residencies from 1991 to 2016, but a new analysis also shows that the percentage of women in subspecialty fellowships declined.

Women made up 43.2% of the internal medicine resident population in 2016, compared with 30.2% in 1991. Over that same time, however, the percentage of women in subspecialty fellowships dropped from 33.3% to 23.6%, Anna T. Stone, MD, and associates wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Many factors are associated with the decisions of medical students in choosing an internal medicine residency, including their sex, educational experience, views of patient care, and lifestyle perceptions. Similar considerations apply to subspecialty training,” wrote Dr. Stone of the department of cardiology at St. Vincent Hospital and Heart Center, Indianapolis, and associates.

When the investigators focused on a subset of nine internal medicine subspecialties, they saw growth: “The percentage of women entering each of the fields [residents plus fellows] increased over time, with variations between specialty and some year-to-year variations within a specialty.”

Although none of the nine subspecialties had been majority women in 1991, by 2016 women made up more than half of the residents and fellows in four: endocrinology (71.3%), geriatric medicine (67.9%), rheumatology (60.2%), and infectious disease (54.6%), according to data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

And then there’s cardiology. Its low rate of participation among women – the only one of the nine subspecialties under 35% – “is an important issue that the cardiology profession should continue to address,” they wrote.

In a survey of internal medicine residents conducted by other researchers, women were more likely than men to report that they had never considered cardiology as a career choice, Dr. Stone and associates noted, and women in the survey “had different perceptions of cardiology than men.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stone AT et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3833.

Mark Williams, MD, MHM, FACP, recently was appointed chief quality and transformation officer for the University of Kentucky’s UK HealthCare (Lexington). Dr. Williams, a tenured professor in the division of hospital medicine at the UK College of Medicine, will serve as chair of UK HealthCare’s Executive Quality Committee. Dr. Williams will lead integration of quality improvement, safety, and quality reporting with data analytics.

Dr. Williams established the first hospitalist program at a public hospital (Grady Memorial Hospital) and academic hospitalist programs at Emory University, Northwestern University, and UK HealthCare. An inaugural member of SHM, he is a past president, was the founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine and led SHM’s Project BOOST.
 

Also at UK HealthCare, Romil Chadha, MD, MPH, SFHM, FACP, has been named interim chief of the division of hospital medicine and medical director of Physician Information Technology Services. Previously, he was associate chief of the division of hospital medicine, and he also serves as medical director of telemetry.

Dr. Chadha is the founder of the Kentucky chapter of SHM, where he is the immediate past president. He is also the codirector of the Heartland Hospital Medicine Conference.
 

Amit Vashist, MD, MBA, CPE, FHM, FACP, FAPA, has been named chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, a 21-hospital health system in Northeast Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, Northwest North Carolina, and Southeast Kentucky.

In his new role, he will focus on clinical quality, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, oversight of the clinical delivery of care and will be the liaison to the Ballad Health Clinical Council. Dr. Vashist is a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.
 

Nagendra Gupta, MD, FACP, CPE, has been appointed to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s Internal Medicine Specialty Board. ABIM Specialty Boards are responsible for the broad definition of the discipline across Certification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Specialty Board members work with physicians and medical societies to develop Certification and MOC credentials to recognize physicians for their specialized knowledge and commitment to staying current in their field.

Dr. Gupta is a full-time practicing hospitalist with Apogee Physicians and currently serves as the director of the hospitalist program at Texas Health Arlington (Tex.) Memorial Hospital. He also serves as vice president for SHM’s North Central Texas Chapter.
 

T. Steen Trawick Jr., MD, was named the CEO of Christus Shreveport-Bossier Health System in Shreveport, La., in August 2019.

Dr. Trawick has worked for Christus as a pediatric hospitalist since 2005 and most recently has served concurrently as associate chief medical officer for Sound Physicians. Through Sound Physicians, Dr. Trawick oversees the hospitalist and emergency medical programs for Christus and other hospitals – 14 in total – in Texas and Louisiana. He has worked in that role for the past 6 years.
 

Scott Shepherd, DO, FACP, has been selected chief medical officer of the health data enrichment and integration technology company Verinovum in Tulsa, Okla. Dr. Shepherd is the medical director for hospitalist medicine and a practicing hospitalist with St. John Health System in Tulsa, and also medical director of the Center for Health Systems Innovation at his alma mater, Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.

Amanda Logue, MD, has been elevated to chief medical officer at Lafayette (La.) General Hospital. Dr. Logue assumed her role in May 2019, which includes the title of senior vice president.

Dr. Logue has worked at Lafayette General since 2009. A hospitalist/internist, her duties at the facility have included department chair of medicine, physician champion for electronic medical record implementation, medical director of the hospitalist program, and most recently chief medical information officer.
 

Rina Bansal, MD, MBA, recently was appointed full-time president of Inova Alexandria (Va.) Hospital, taking the reins officially after serving as acting president since November 2018. Dr. Bansal has been at Inova since 2008, when she started as a hospitalist at Inova Fairfax (Va.).

Dr. Bansal created and led Inova’s Clinical Nurse Services Hospitalist program through its department of neurosciences and has done stints as Inova Fairfax’s associate chief medical officer, medical director of Inova Telemedicine, and chief medical officer at Inova Alexandria.
 

James Napoli, MD, has been named chief medical officer for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona (BCBSAZ). He has manned the CMO position in an interim role since March, taking those duties on top of his role as BCBSAZ’s enterprise medical director for health care ventures and innovation.

Dr. Napoli came to BCBSAZ in 2013 after more than a decade at Abrazo Arrowhead Campus (Glendale, Ariz.) At Abrazo, he was director of hospitalist services and vice-chief of staff, on top of his efforts as a practicing hospital medicine clinician.

Dr. Napoli was previously medical director at OptumHealth, working specifically in the medical management and quality improvement areas for the health management solutions organization’s Medicare Advantage clients.
 

Mercy Hospital Fort Smith (Ark.) has partnered with the Ob Hospitalist Group (Greenville, S.C.) to launch an obstetric hospitalist program. OB hospitalists deliver babies when a patient’s physician cannot be present, provide emergency care, and provide support to high-risk pregnancy patients, among other duties within the hospital.

The partnership has allowed Mercy Fort Smith to create a dedicated, four-room obstetric emergency department in its Mercy Childbirth Center. Eight OB hospitalists have been hired and will provide care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Mark Williams, MD, MHM, FACP, recently was appointed chief quality and transformation officer for the University of Kentucky’s UK HealthCare (Lexington). Dr. Williams, a tenured professor in the division of hospital medicine at the UK College of Medicine, will serve as chair of UK HealthCare’s Executive Quality Committee. Dr. Williams will lead integration of quality improvement, safety, and quality reporting with data analytics.

Dr. Williams established the first hospitalist program at a public hospital (Grady Memorial Hospital) and academic hospitalist programs at Emory University, Northwestern University, and UK HealthCare. An inaugural member of SHM, he is a past president, was the founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine and led SHM’s Project BOOST.
 

Also at UK HealthCare, Romil Chadha, MD, MPH, SFHM, FACP, has been named interim chief of the division of hospital medicine and medical director of Physician Information Technology Services. Previously, he was associate chief of the division of hospital medicine, and he also serves as medical director of telemetry.

Dr. Chadha is the founder of the Kentucky chapter of SHM, where he is the immediate past president. He is also the codirector of the Heartland Hospital Medicine Conference.
 

Amit Vashist, MD, MBA, CPE, FHM, FACP, FAPA, has been named chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, a 21-hospital health system in Northeast Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, Northwest North Carolina, and Southeast Kentucky.

In his new role, he will focus on clinical quality, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, oversight of the clinical delivery of care and will be the liaison to the Ballad Health Clinical Council. Dr. Vashist is a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.
 

Nagendra Gupta, MD, FACP, CPE, has been appointed to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s Internal Medicine Specialty Board. ABIM Specialty Boards are responsible for the broad definition of the discipline across Certification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Specialty Board members work with physicians and medical societies to develop Certification and MOC credentials to recognize physicians for their specialized knowledge and commitment to staying current in their field.

Dr. Gupta is a full-time practicing hospitalist with Apogee Physicians and currently serves as the director of the hospitalist program at Texas Health Arlington (Tex.) Memorial Hospital. He also serves as vice president for SHM’s North Central Texas Chapter.
 

T. Steen Trawick Jr., MD, was named the CEO of Christus Shreveport-Bossier Health System in Shreveport, La., in August 2019.

Dr. Trawick has worked for Christus as a pediatric hospitalist since 2005 and most recently has served concurrently as associate chief medical officer for Sound Physicians. Through Sound Physicians, Dr. Trawick oversees the hospitalist and emergency medical programs for Christus and other hospitals – 14 in total – in Texas and Louisiana. He has worked in that role for the past 6 years.
 

Scott Shepherd, DO, FACP, has been selected chief medical officer of the health data enrichment and integration technology company Verinovum in Tulsa, Okla. Dr. Shepherd is the medical director for hospitalist medicine and a practicing hospitalist with St. John Health System in Tulsa, and also medical director of the Center for Health Systems Innovation at his alma mater, Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.

Amanda Logue, MD, has been elevated to chief medical officer at Lafayette (La.) General Hospital. Dr. Logue assumed her role in May 2019, which includes the title of senior vice president.

Dr. Logue has worked at Lafayette General since 2009. A hospitalist/internist, her duties at the facility have included department chair of medicine, physician champion for electronic medical record implementation, medical director of the hospitalist program, and most recently chief medical information officer.
 

Rina Bansal, MD, MBA, recently was appointed full-time president of Inova Alexandria (Va.) Hospital, taking the reins officially after serving as acting president since November 2018. Dr. Bansal has been at Inova since 2008, when she started as a hospitalist at Inova Fairfax (Va.).

Dr. Bansal created and led Inova’s Clinical Nurse Services Hospitalist program through its department of neurosciences and has done stints as Inova Fairfax’s associate chief medical officer, medical director of Inova Telemedicine, and chief medical officer at Inova Alexandria.
 

James Napoli, MD, has been named chief medical officer for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona (BCBSAZ). He has manned the CMO position in an interim role since March, taking those duties on top of his role as BCBSAZ’s enterprise medical director for health care ventures and innovation.

Dr. Napoli came to BCBSAZ in 2013 after more than a decade at Abrazo Arrowhead Campus (Glendale, Ariz.) At Abrazo, he was director of hospitalist services and vice-chief of staff, on top of his efforts as a practicing hospital medicine clinician.

Dr. Napoli was previously medical director at OptumHealth, working specifically in the medical management and quality improvement areas for the health management solutions organization’s Medicare Advantage clients.
 

Mercy Hospital Fort Smith (Ark.) has partnered with the Ob Hospitalist Group (Greenville, S.C.) to launch an obstetric hospitalist program. OB hospitalists deliver babies when a patient’s physician cannot be present, provide emergency care, and provide support to high-risk pregnancy patients, among other duties within the hospital.

The partnership has allowed Mercy Fort Smith to create a dedicated, four-room obstetric emergency department in its Mercy Childbirth Center. Eight OB hospitalists have been hired and will provide care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Mark Williams, MD, MHM, FACP, recently was appointed chief quality and transformation officer for the University of Kentucky’s UK HealthCare (Lexington). Dr. Williams, a tenured professor in the division of hospital medicine at the UK College of Medicine, will serve as chair of UK HealthCare’s Executive Quality Committee. Dr. Williams will lead integration of quality improvement, safety, and quality reporting with data analytics.

Dr. Williams established the first hospitalist program at a public hospital (Grady Memorial Hospital) and academic hospitalist programs at Emory University, Northwestern University, and UK HealthCare. An inaugural member of SHM, he is a past president, was the founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine and led SHM’s Project BOOST.
 

Also at UK HealthCare, Romil Chadha, MD, MPH, SFHM, FACP, has been named interim chief of the division of hospital medicine and medical director of Physician Information Technology Services. Previously, he was associate chief of the division of hospital medicine, and he also serves as medical director of telemetry.

Dr. Chadha is the founder of the Kentucky chapter of SHM, where he is the immediate past president. He is also the codirector of the Heartland Hospital Medicine Conference.
 

Amit Vashist, MD, MBA, CPE, FHM, FACP, FAPA, has been named chief clinical officer at Ballad Health, a 21-hospital health system in Northeast Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, Northwest North Carolina, and Southeast Kentucky.

In his new role, he will focus on clinical quality, value-based initiatives to improve quality while reducing cost of care, performance improvement, oversight of the clinical delivery of care and will be the liaison to the Ballad Health Clinical Council. Dr. Vashist is a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.
 

Nagendra Gupta, MD, FACP, CPE, has been appointed to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s Internal Medicine Specialty Board. ABIM Specialty Boards are responsible for the broad definition of the discipline across Certification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Specialty Board members work with physicians and medical societies to develop Certification and MOC credentials to recognize physicians for their specialized knowledge and commitment to staying current in their field.

Dr. Gupta is a full-time practicing hospitalist with Apogee Physicians and currently serves as the director of the hospitalist program at Texas Health Arlington (Tex.) Memorial Hospital. He also serves as vice president for SHM’s North Central Texas Chapter.
 

T. Steen Trawick Jr., MD, was named the CEO of Christus Shreveport-Bossier Health System in Shreveport, La., in August 2019.

Dr. Trawick has worked for Christus as a pediatric hospitalist since 2005 and most recently has served concurrently as associate chief medical officer for Sound Physicians. Through Sound Physicians, Dr. Trawick oversees the hospitalist and emergency medical programs for Christus and other hospitals – 14 in total – in Texas and Louisiana. He has worked in that role for the past 6 years.
 

Scott Shepherd, DO, FACP, has been selected chief medical officer of the health data enrichment and integration technology company Verinovum in Tulsa, Okla. Dr. Shepherd is the medical director for hospitalist medicine and a practicing hospitalist with St. John Health System in Tulsa, and also medical director of the Center for Health Systems Innovation at his alma mater, Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.

Amanda Logue, MD, has been elevated to chief medical officer at Lafayette (La.) General Hospital. Dr. Logue assumed her role in May 2019, which includes the title of senior vice president.

Dr. Logue has worked at Lafayette General since 2009. A hospitalist/internist, her duties at the facility have included department chair of medicine, physician champion for electronic medical record implementation, medical director of the hospitalist program, and most recently chief medical information officer.
 

Rina Bansal, MD, MBA, recently was appointed full-time president of Inova Alexandria (Va.) Hospital, taking the reins officially after serving as acting president since November 2018. Dr. Bansal has been at Inova since 2008, when she started as a hospitalist at Inova Fairfax (Va.).

Dr. Bansal created and led Inova’s Clinical Nurse Services Hospitalist program through its department of neurosciences and has done stints as Inova Fairfax’s associate chief medical officer, medical director of Inova Telemedicine, and chief medical officer at Inova Alexandria.
 

James Napoli, MD, has been named chief medical officer for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona (BCBSAZ). He has manned the CMO position in an interim role since March, taking those duties on top of his role as BCBSAZ’s enterprise medical director for health care ventures and innovation.

Dr. Napoli came to BCBSAZ in 2013 after more than a decade at Abrazo Arrowhead Campus (Glendale, Ariz.) At Abrazo, he was director of hospitalist services and vice-chief of staff, on top of his efforts as a practicing hospital medicine clinician.

Dr. Napoli was previously medical director at OptumHealth, working specifically in the medical management and quality improvement areas for the health management solutions organization’s Medicare Advantage clients.
 

Mercy Hospital Fort Smith (Ark.) has partnered with the Ob Hospitalist Group (Greenville, S.C.) to launch an obstetric hospitalist program. OB hospitalists deliver babies when a patient’s physician cannot be present, provide emergency care, and provide support to high-risk pregnancy patients, among other duties within the hospital.

The partnership has allowed Mercy Fort Smith to create a dedicated, four-room obstetric emergency department in its Mercy Childbirth Center. Eight OB hospitalists have been hired and will provide care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Hospitalist Rahul C. Borsadia, MD, had been working with Orlando Health Inpatient Medicine Group since the year of its founding in 2011.

The salaries of the practice’s physicians back then were based on relative value units (RVU) – the more patients that physicians saw, the higher their salaries. But a problem arose, Dr. Borsadia said. Physicians were trying to squeeze in two dozen or more patients a day “in a practice that is modeled for quality.”

“By the time the end of the day comes, it’s 9 or 10 p.m. and you are leaving but coming back at 6:30 the next morning. So, lack of sleep, more patients, striving to earn that higher salary,” he said. “The desire to perform quality work with that kind of patient load was not fulfilled and that lead to dissatisfaction and stress, which lead to irritation and exodus from the group.”

Three years ago, the practice transitioned to a throughput process with a census limit of 18 patients or less, without an RVU system, but with salary incentives based on patient satisfaction, billing, and documentation.

“We’ve not had anybody leave the hospital because of burnout or dissatisfaction” since the new system was put into place, Dr. Borsadia said. “Less burnout means more people are happy.”

Although symptoms of burnout still seem to be rampant across hospital medicine, hospitalists are putting potential solutions into place. And – sometimes – they are making progress, through tweaks in schedules and responsibilities, incentives suited to different goals, and better communication.
 

Scheduling problems

The need for continuing efforts to improve the work experience for hospitalists is apparent, said Henry Michtalik, MD, MPH, MHS, assistant professor of general internal medicine at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who led a workshop on the topic at the 2019 Annual Conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine (HM19).

A 2016 survey of academic general internal medicine clinicians – including about 600 hospitalists and outpatient physicians – found that 67% reported high stress, 38% said they were “burned out,” 50% said they felt they had “low control” over their work, and 60% said they felt high documentation pressures. Still, 68% said they were satisfied with the values of their departments.

Hospitalists surveyed were actually less likely to say they were burned out, compared with outpatient internists – 52%, compared with 55% – but they were more likely to score low on a scale measuring personal accomplishments, compared with the outpatient clinicians – 20% to 10%. The survey found no significant difference between the two groups in depression or suicidality. But with 40% reporting depression and 10% reporting thoughts of suicide, the numbers virtually cry out for solutions.

Hospitalists in the HM19 workshop, as in other sessions at the Annual Conference, questioned whether the standard 7-days-on, 7-days-off work schedule – seven 12-hour shifts followed by 7 days off – allows hospitalists to pair their works lives with their personal lives in a sustainable way. They described the way that the stress and fatigue of such an intense work period bleeds into the days off that follow after it.

“By the end of seven 12’s, they’re bleary eyed, they’re upset, they go home (for) 2 days of washout before they even start to enjoy whatever life they have left,” said Jonathan Martin, MD, director of medicine at Cumberland Medical Center in Crossville, Tenn. “It’s hard to get hospitalists to buy in, which increases their dissatisfaction.”

Dr. Michtalik had a similar perspective.

“You just shut the rest of your life down completely for those 7 days and then, on your 7 days off, you’ve scheduled your life,” he said. “But that last off day – day number 7 – you feel that pit in your stomach, that the streak is coming.” He joked that the feeling was similar to the dread inspired by the phrase “winter is coming” in the popular HBO series “Game of Thrones.”

Systematic reviews of the literature have found that it’s mostly changes at the organization level – rather than changes that an individual physician makes on his or her own – that tend to make significant differences. Changes to structure, communication, and scheduling tend to work better than working on mindfulness, education, or trying to improve resilience, Dr. Michtalik said.

In one study discussed at the HM19 workshop, researchers compared a schedule in which an intensivist works in-house for 7 days, with home call at night, to a schedule in which the intensivist is completely off at night, with an in-house intensivist covering the night shift. The schedule in which the intensivist was truly off for the night significantly reduced reports of burnout, while not affecting length of stay or patient-experience outcomes.

Dr. Michtalik said that another study compared 4-week rotations to 2-week rotations for attending physicians. Researchers found that the 2-week version resulted in lower reports of burnout, with readmissions and patient experience unaffected, although they noted that residents tended to prefer 4-week schedules because they felt it resulted in better relationships with the attending physician.

Perhaps the dominant factor in job satisfaction that’s been identified in surveys is how physicians, patients, and administrators relate to one another, Dr. Michtalik said.

“The important concept here is that relationships were really important in driving job satisfaction, whether that be with our colleagues, our patients, or with the staff that you’re working with,” he said. “It’s always easier to decline a consultation or have a bad interaction with someone over the phone than it is if you actually know them or you are communicating face to face. That’s why it’s important to develop these kinds of relationships, which also put a face to what’s going on.”
 

Beyond salary adjustments

Hospitalists attending the HM19 workshop said they thought that participating in administration committees at their own institutions helps keep hospitalists involved in hospital matters, limiting the effects of burnout and improving workplace satisfaction.

Kevin McAninch, DO, a hospitalist with Central Ohio Primary Care in Westerville, said a shift in work responsibilities has made an improvement at his hospital. There is now an “inpatient support center” – which has a physician and a nurse in an office taking calls from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., so that rounders can stop taking floor calls during that time.

The system “takes the pressure off our admitters at night and our nurses because they’re not getting floor calls anymore, so they’re just taking care of the admissions from the ER,” he said.

A recurring theme of the discussion was that salary alone seems universally incapable of eradicating feelings of burnout. One hospitalist said that in surveys, higher-paid physicians insist that monetary compensation is their main driver, but still often complain of burnout because they must work extra shifts to earn that higher level of pay.

Instead, burnout and satisfaction indicators tend to have more do to with time, control, and support, Dr. Michtalik noted.

Mangla Gulati, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, said that there’s no big secret about what hospitalists want from their places of employment. They want things like getting patients to service faster so they can make diagnoses, making sure patients get the care they need, fixing the problems associated with electronic medical records, and having a work-life “integration.”

“The questions is – how do we get there?” Dr. Gulati wondered. She suggested that hospitalists have to be more assertive and explanatory in their interactions with members of the hospital C-suite.

“I think it’s really important for you to understand or ask your C-suite, ‘Where are you in this whole journey? What is your perception of wellness? Tell me some of the measures of staff wellness,’ ” she said.

If the C-suite says “we have no money” to make improvements, hospitalists must be willing to say, ‘Well, you’re going to have to invest a little bit.’ ” Dr. Gulati said. “What is the ROI (return on investment) on the turnover of a physician? Because when you turn a physician over, you have to recruit and hire new staff.”

Dr. Gulati said that hospitalists should provide C-suite leaders with a detailed walk-through of their actual workflows – what their workdays look like – because “it’s not something they’re familiar with.”

Aside from improving relations with hospital administration, Dr. Gulati suggested creating CME programs for wellness, offering time and funding for physician support meetings, supporting flexibility in work hours, and creating programs specifically to help clinicians with burnout symptoms.

She also touted the benefits of “Schwartz Rounds,” in which several medical disciplines gather to talk about a case that was particularly challenging, clinically complex, and emotionally draining for everyone involved.

At Cumberland Medical Center, Dr. Martin said he has two meetings a month with executives in the hospital’s C-suite. One is with his hospitalist group, TeamHealth, and one is more direct, between himself and hospital administrators. It’s just 2 hours a month, but these conversations have undoubtedly helped, he said, although he cautioned that “the meetings themselves don’t have as much meaning if you aren’t communicating effectively,” meaning hospitalists must understand how the C-suite thinks and learn to speak in terms they understand.

“When I go to the administration now and I say ‘Hey, this is a problem that we’re having. I need your help in solving it,’ the executives are much more likely to respond to me than if they’d never seen me, or only see me rarely,” Dr. Martin said.

As a result, a collaborative approach to such conversations tends to be more effective.

“If you go to the C-suite and say, ‘Here’s our issue, how can you help us?’ – as opposed to telling the administration, ‘This is what I need’ – they are more likely to work with you to generate a solution.”

Hospitalist Rahul C. Borsadia, MD, had been working with Orlando Health Inpatient Medicine Group since the year of its founding in 2011.

The salaries of the practice’s physicians back then were based on relative value units (RVU) – the more patients that physicians saw, the higher their salaries. But a problem arose, Dr. Borsadia said. Physicians were trying to squeeze in two dozen or more patients a day “in a practice that is modeled for quality.”

“By the time the end of the day comes, it’s 9 or 10 p.m. and you are leaving but coming back at 6:30 the next morning. So, lack of sleep, more patients, striving to earn that higher salary,” he said. “The desire to perform quality work with that kind of patient load was not fulfilled and that lead to dissatisfaction and stress, which lead to irritation and exodus from the group.”

Three years ago, the practice transitioned to a throughput process with a census limit of 18 patients or less, without an RVU system, but with salary incentives based on patient satisfaction, billing, and documentation.

“We’ve not had anybody leave the hospital because of burnout or dissatisfaction” since the new system was put into place, Dr. Borsadia said. “Less burnout means more people are happy.”

Although symptoms of burnout still seem to be rampant across hospital medicine, hospitalists are putting potential solutions into place. And – sometimes – they are making progress, through tweaks in schedules and responsibilities, incentives suited to different goals, and better communication.
 

Scheduling problems

The need for continuing efforts to improve the work experience for hospitalists is apparent, said Henry Michtalik, MD, MPH, MHS, assistant professor of general internal medicine at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who led a workshop on the topic at the 2019 Annual Conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine (HM19).

A 2016 survey of academic general internal medicine clinicians – including about 600 hospitalists and outpatient physicians – found that 67% reported high stress, 38% said they were “burned out,” 50% said they felt they had “low control” over their work, and 60% said they felt high documentation pressures. Still, 68% said they were satisfied with the values of their departments.

Hospitalists surveyed were actually less likely to say they were burned out, compared with outpatient internists – 52%, compared with 55% – but they were more likely to score low on a scale measuring personal accomplishments, compared with the outpatient clinicians – 20% to 10%. The survey found no significant difference between the two groups in depression or suicidality. But with 40% reporting depression and 10% reporting thoughts of suicide, the numbers virtually cry out for solutions.

Hospitalists in the HM19 workshop, as in other sessions at the Annual Conference, questioned whether the standard 7-days-on, 7-days-off work schedule – seven 12-hour shifts followed by 7 days off – allows hospitalists to pair their works lives with their personal lives in a sustainable way. They described the way that the stress and fatigue of such an intense work period bleeds into the days off that follow after it.

“By the end of seven 12’s, they’re bleary eyed, they’re upset, they go home (for) 2 days of washout before they even start to enjoy whatever life they have left,” said Jonathan Martin, MD, director of medicine at Cumberland Medical Center in Crossville, Tenn. “It’s hard to get hospitalists to buy in, which increases their dissatisfaction.”

Dr. Michtalik had a similar perspective.

“You just shut the rest of your life down completely for those 7 days and then, on your 7 days off, you’ve scheduled your life,” he said. “But that last off day – day number 7 – you feel that pit in your stomach, that the streak is coming.” He joked that the feeling was similar to the dread inspired by the phrase “winter is coming” in the popular HBO series “Game of Thrones.”

Systematic reviews of the literature have found that it’s mostly changes at the organization level – rather than changes that an individual physician makes on his or her own – that tend to make significant differences. Changes to structure, communication, and scheduling tend to work better than working on mindfulness, education, or trying to improve resilience, Dr. Michtalik said.

In one study discussed at the HM19 workshop, researchers compared a schedule in which an intensivist works in-house for 7 days, with home call at night, to a schedule in which the intensivist is completely off at night, with an in-house intensivist covering the night shift. The schedule in which the intensivist was truly off for the night significantly reduced reports of burnout, while not affecting length of stay or patient-experience outcomes.

Dr. Michtalik said that another study compared 4-week rotations to 2-week rotations for attending physicians. Researchers found that the 2-week version resulted in lower reports of burnout, with readmissions and patient experience unaffected, although they noted that residents tended to prefer 4-week schedules because they felt it resulted in better relationships with the attending physician.

Perhaps the dominant factor in job satisfaction that’s been identified in surveys is how physicians, patients, and administrators relate to one another, Dr. Michtalik said.

“The important concept here is that relationships were really important in driving job satisfaction, whether that be with our colleagues, our patients, or with the staff that you’re working with,” he said. “It’s always easier to decline a consultation or have a bad interaction with someone over the phone than it is if you actually know them or you are communicating face to face. That’s why it’s important to develop these kinds of relationships, which also put a face to what’s going on.”
 

Beyond salary adjustments

Hospitalists attending the HM19 workshop said they thought that participating in administration committees at their own institutions helps keep hospitalists involved in hospital matters, limiting the effects of burnout and improving workplace satisfaction.

Kevin McAninch, DO, a hospitalist with Central Ohio Primary Care in Westerville, said a shift in work responsibilities has made an improvement at his hospital. There is now an “inpatient support center” – which has a physician and a nurse in an office taking calls from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., so that rounders can stop taking floor calls during that time.

The system “takes the pressure off our admitters at night and our nurses because they’re not getting floor calls anymore, so they’re just taking care of the admissions from the ER,” he said.

A recurring theme of the discussion was that salary alone seems universally incapable of eradicating feelings of burnout. One hospitalist said that in surveys, higher-paid physicians insist that monetary compensation is their main driver, but still often complain of burnout because they must work extra shifts to earn that higher level of pay.

Instead, burnout and satisfaction indicators tend to have more do to with time, control, and support, Dr. Michtalik noted.

Mangla Gulati, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, said that there’s no big secret about what hospitalists want from their places of employment. They want things like getting patients to service faster so they can make diagnoses, making sure patients get the care they need, fixing the problems associated with electronic medical records, and having a work-life “integration.”

“The questions is – how do we get there?” Dr. Gulati wondered. She suggested that hospitalists have to be more assertive and explanatory in their interactions with members of the hospital C-suite.

“I think it’s really important for you to understand or ask your C-suite, ‘Where are you in this whole journey? What is your perception of wellness? Tell me some of the measures of staff wellness,’ ” she said.

If the C-suite says “we have no money” to make improvements, hospitalists must be willing to say, ‘Well, you’re going to have to invest a little bit.’ ” Dr. Gulati said. “What is the ROI (return on investment) on the turnover of a physician? Because when you turn a physician over, you have to recruit and hire new staff.”

Dr. Gulati said that hospitalists should provide C-suite leaders with a detailed walk-through of their actual workflows – what their workdays look like – because “it’s not something they’re familiar with.”

Aside from improving relations with hospital administration, Dr. Gulati suggested creating CME programs for wellness, offering time and funding for physician support meetings, supporting flexibility in work hours, and creating programs specifically to help clinicians with burnout symptoms.

She also touted the benefits of “Schwartz Rounds,” in which several medical disciplines gather to talk about a case that was particularly challenging, clinically complex, and emotionally draining for everyone involved.

At Cumberland Medical Center, Dr. Martin said he has two meetings a month with executives in the hospital’s C-suite. One is with his hospitalist group, TeamHealth, and one is more direct, between himself and hospital administrators. It’s just 2 hours a month, but these conversations have undoubtedly helped, he said, although he cautioned that “the meetings themselves don’t have as much meaning if you aren’t communicating effectively,” meaning hospitalists must understand how the C-suite thinks and learn to speak in terms they understand.

“When I go to the administration now and I say ‘Hey, this is a problem that we’re having. I need your help in solving it,’ the executives are much more likely to respond to me than if they’d never seen me, or only see me rarely,” Dr. Martin said.

As a result, a collaborative approach to such conversations tends to be more effective.

“If you go to the C-suite and say, ‘Here’s our issue, how can you help us?’ – as opposed to telling the administration, ‘This is what I need’ – they are more likely to work with you to generate a solution.”

Hospitalist Rahul C. Borsadia, MD, had been working with Orlando Health Inpatient Medicine Group since the year of its founding in 2011.

The salaries of the practice’s physicians back then were based on relative value units (RVU) – the more patients that physicians saw, the higher their salaries. But a problem arose, Dr. Borsadia said. Physicians were trying to squeeze in two dozen or more patients a day “in a practice that is modeled for quality.”

“By the time the end of the day comes, it’s 9 or 10 p.m. and you are leaving but coming back at 6:30 the next morning. So, lack of sleep, more patients, striving to earn that higher salary,” he said. “The desire to perform quality work with that kind of patient load was not fulfilled and that lead to dissatisfaction and stress, which lead to irritation and exodus from the group.”

Three years ago, the practice transitioned to a throughput process with a census limit of 18 patients or less, without an RVU system, but with salary incentives based on patient satisfaction, billing, and documentation.

“We’ve not had anybody leave the hospital because of burnout or dissatisfaction” since the new system was put into place, Dr. Borsadia said. “Less burnout means more people are happy.”

Although symptoms of burnout still seem to be rampant across hospital medicine, hospitalists are putting potential solutions into place. And – sometimes – they are making progress, through tweaks in schedules and responsibilities, incentives suited to different goals, and better communication.
 

Scheduling problems

The need for continuing efforts to improve the work experience for hospitalists is apparent, said Henry Michtalik, MD, MPH, MHS, assistant professor of general internal medicine at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who led a workshop on the topic at the 2019 Annual Conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine (HM19).

A 2016 survey of academic general internal medicine clinicians – including about 600 hospitalists and outpatient physicians – found that 67% reported high stress, 38% said they were “burned out,” 50% said they felt they had “low control” over their work, and 60% said they felt high documentation pressures. Still, 68% said they were satisfied with the values of their departments.

Hospitalists surveyed were actually less likely to say they were burned out, compared with outpatient internists – 52%, compared with 55% – but they were more likely to score low on a scale measuring personal accomplishments, compared with the outpatient clinicians – 20% to 10%. The survey found no significant difference between the two groups in depression or suicidality. But with 40% reporting depression and 10% reporting thoughts of suicide, the numbers virtually cry out for solutions.

Hospitalists in the HM19 workshop, as in other sessions at the Annual Conference, questioned whether the standard 7-days-on, 7-days-off work schedule – seven 12-hour shifts followed by 7 days off – allows hospitalists to pair their works lives with their personal lives in a sustainable way. They described the way that the stress and fatigue of such an intense work period bleeds into the days off that follow after it.

“By the end of seven 12’s, they’re bleary eyed, they’re upset, they go home (for) 2 days of washout before they even start to enjoy whatever life they have left,” said Jonathan Martin, MD, director of medicine at Cumberland Medical Center in Crossville, Tenn. “It’s hard to get hospitalists to buy in, which increases their dissatisfaction.”

Dr. Michtalik had a similar perspective.

“You just shut the rest of your life down completely for those 7 days and then, on your 7 days off, you’ve scheduled your life,” he said. “But that last off day – day number 7 – you feel that pit in your stomach, that the streak is coming.” He joked that the feeling was similar to the dread inspired by the phrase “winter is coming” in the popular HBO series “Game of Thrones.”

Systematic reviews of the literature have found that it’s mostly changes at the organization level – rather than changes that an individual physician makes on his or her own – that tend to make significant differences. Changes to structure, communication, and scheduling tend to work better than working on mindfulness, education, or trying to improve resilience, Dr. Michtalik said.

In one study discussed at the HM19 workshop, researchers compared a schedule in which an intensivist works in-house for 7 days, with home call at night, to a schedule in which the intensivist is completely off at night, with an in-house intensivist covering the night shift. The schedule in which the intensivist was truly off for the night significantly reduced reports of burnout, while not affecting length of stay or patient-experience outcomes.

Dr. Michtalik said that another study compared 4-week rotations to 2-week rotations for attending physicians. Researchers found that the 2-week version resulted in lower reports of burnout, with readmissions and patient experience unaffected, although they noted that residents tended to prefer 4-week schedules because they felt it resulted in better relationships with the attending physician.

Perhaps the dominant factor in job satisfaction that’s been identified in surveys is how physicians, patients, and administrators relate to one another, Dr. Michtalik said.

“The important concept here is that relationships were really important in driving job satisfaction, whether that be with our colleagues, our patients, or with the staff that you’re working with,” he said. “It’s always easier to decline a consultation or have a bad interaction with someone over the phone than it is if you actually know them or you are communicating face to face. That’s why it’s important to develop these kinds of relationships, which also put a face to what’s going on.”
 

Beyond salary adjustments

Hospitalists attending the HM19 workshop said they thought that participating in administration committees at their own institutions helps keep hospitalists involved in hospital matters, limiting the effects of burnout and improving workplace satisfaction.

Kevin McAninch, DO, a hospitalist with Central Ohio Primary Care in Westerville, said a shift in work responsibilities has made an improvement at his hospital. There is now an “inpatient support center” – which has a physician and a nurse in an office taking calls from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., so that rounders can stop taking floor calls during that time.

The system “takes the pressure off our admitters at night and our nurses because they’re not getting floor calls anymore, so they’re just taking care of the admissions from the ER,” he said.

A recurring theme of the discussion was that salary alone seems universally incapable of eradicating feelings of burnout. One hospitalist said that in surveys, higher-paid physicians insist that monetary compensation is their main driver, but still often complain of burnout because they must work extra shifts to earn that higher level of pay.

Instead, burnout and satisfaction indicators tend to have more do to with time, control, and support, Dr. Michtalik noted.

Mangla Gulati, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, said that there’s no big secret about what hospitalists want from their places of employment. They want things like getting patients to service faster so they can make diagnoses, making sure patients get the care they need, fixing the problems associated with electronic medical records, and having a work-life “integration.”

“The questions is – how do we get there?” Dr. Gulati wondered. She suggested that hospitalists have to be more assertive and explanatory in their interactions with members of the hospital C-suite.

“I think it’s really important for you to understand or ask your C-suite, ‘Where are you in this whole journey? What is your perception of wellness? Tell me some of the measures of staff wellness,’ ” she said.

If the C-suite says “we have no money” to make improvements, hospitalists must be willing to say, ‘Well, you’re going to have to invest a little bit.’ ” Dr. Gulati said. “What is the ROI (return on investment) on the turnover of a physician? Because when you turn a physician over, you have to recruit and hire new staff.”

Dr. Gulati said that hospitalists should provide C-suite leaders with a detailed walk-through of their actual workflows – what their workdays look like – because “it’s not something they’re familiar with.”

Aside from improving relations with hospital administration, Dr. Gulati suggested creating CME programs for wellness, offering time and funding for physician support meetings, supporting flexibility in work hours, and creating programs specifically to help clinicians with burnout symptoms.

She also touted the benefits of “Schwartz Rounds,” in which several medical disciplines gather to talk about a case that was particularly challenging, clinically complex, and emotionally draining for everyone involved.

At Cumberland Medical Center, Dr. Martin said he has two meetings a month with executives in the hospital’s C-suite. One is with his hospitalist group, TeamHealth, and one is more direct, between himself and hospital administrators. It’s just 2 hours a month, but these conversations have undoubtedly helped, he said, although he cautioned that “the meetings themselves don’t have as much meaning if you aren’t communicating effectively,” meaning hospitalists must understand how the C-suite thinks and learn to speak in terms they understand.

“When I go to the administration now and I say ‘Hey, this is a problem that we’re having. I need your help in solving it,’ the executives are much more likely to respond to me than if they’d never seen me, or only see me rarely,” Dr. Martin said.

As a result, a collaborative approach to such conversations tends to be more effective.

“If you go to the C-suite and say, ‘Here’s our issue, how can you help us?’ – as opposed to telling the administration, ‘This is what I need’ – they are more likely to work with you to generate a solution.”

Physician groups are praising a new option by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) that will offer doctors a self-paced pathway for maintenance of certification (MOC) in place of the traditional long-form assessment route.

The new longitudinal assessment option, announced in late August, would enable physicians to acquire and demonstrate ongoing knowledge through shorter evaluations of specific content. The option, currently under development, also would provide doctors with immediate feedback about their answers and share links to educational material to address knowledge gaps, according to an announcement. While details are still being flushed out, a summary of the longitudinal assessment concept by the American Board of Medical Specialties explains that the approach draws on the principles of adult learning and modern technology “to promote learning, retention, and transfer of information.”

Developing a longitudinal assessment option is part of ABIM’s ongoing evolution, Marianne M. Green, MD, chair for ABIM’s board of directors and ABIM President Richard J. Baron, MD, wrote in a joint letter to internists posted on ABIM’s blog.

“We recognize that some physicians may prefer a more continuous process that easily integrates into their lives and allows them to engage seamlessly at their preferred pace, while being able to access the resources they use in practice,” the doctors wrote.

Douglas DeLong, MD, chair of the American College of Physician’s (ACP) board of regents said the option is a positive, first step that will support lifelong learning. He noted the new option is in line with recommendations by the American Board of Medical Specialties’ Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission, which included ACP concerns.

“It’s pretty clear that some of the principles of adult learning – frequent information with quick feedback, repetition of material, and identifying gaps in knowledge – is really how people most effectively learn,” Dr. DeLong said in an interview. “Just cramming for an examination every decade hasn’t ever really been shown to affect long-term retention of knowledge or even patient care outcomes.”

[email protected]

Physician groups are praising a new option by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) that will offer doctors a self-paced pathway for maintenance of certification (MOC) in place of the traditional long-form assessment route.

The new longitudinal assessment option, announced in late August, would enable physicians to acquire and demonstrate ongoing knowledge through shorter evaluations of specific content. The option, currently under development, also would provide doctors with immediate feedback about their answers and share links to educational material to address knowledge gaps, according to an announcement. While details are still being flushed out, a summary of the longitudinal assessment concept by the American Board of Medical Specialties explains that the approach draws on the principles of adult learning and modern technology “to promote learning, retention, and transfer of information.”

Developing a longitudinal assessment option is part of ABIM’s ongoing evolution, Marianne M. Green, MD, chair for ABIM’s board of directors and ABIM President Richard J. Baron, MD, wrote in a joint letter to internists posted on ABIM’s blog.

“We recognize that some physicians may prefer a more continuous process that easily integrates into their lives and allows them to engage seamlessly at their preferred pace, while being able to access the resources they use in practice,” the doctors wrote.

Douglas DeLong, MD, chair of the American College of Physician’s (ACP) board of regents said the option is a positive, first step that will support lifelong learning. He noted the new option is in line with recommendations by the American Board of Medical Specialties’ Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission, which included ACP concerns.

“It’s pretty clear that some of the principles of adult learning – frequent information with quick feedback, repetition of material, and identifying gaps in knowledge – is really how people most effectively learn,” Dr. DeLong said in an interview. “Just cramming for an examination every decade hasn’t ever really been shown to affect long-term retention of knowledge or even patient care outcomes.”

[email protected]

Physician groups are praising a new option by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) that will offer doctors a self-paced pathway for maintenance of certification (MOC) in place of the traditional long-form assessment route.

The new longitudinal assessment option, announced in late August, would enable physicians to acquire and demonstrate ongoing knowledge through shorter evaluations of specific content. The option, currently under development, also would provide doctors with immediate feedback about their answers and share links to educational material to address knowledge gaps, according to an announcement. While details are still being flushed out, a summary of the longitudinal assessment concept by the American Board of Medical Specialties explains that the approach draws on the principles of adult learning and modern technology “to promote learning, retention, and transfer of information.”

Developing a longitudinal assessment option is part of ABIM’s ongoing evolution, Marianne M. Green, MD, chair for ABIM’s board of directors and ABIM President Richard J. Baron, MD, wrote in a joint letter to internists posted on ABIM’s blog.

“We recognize that some physicians may prefer a more continuous process that easily integrates into their lives and allows them to engage seamlessly at their preferred pace, while being able to access the resources they use in practice,” the doctors wrote.

Douglas DeLong, MD, chair of the American College of Physician’s (ACP) board of regents said the option is a positive, first step that will support lifelong learning. He noted the new option is in line with recommendations by the American Board of Medical Specialties’ Continuing Board Certification: Vision for the Future Commission, which included ACP concerns.

“It’s pretty clear that some of the principles of adult learning – frequent information with quick feedback, repetition of material, and identifying gaps in knowledge – is really how people most effectively learn,” Dr. DeLong said in an interview. “Just cramming for an examination every decade hasn’t ever really been shown to affect long-term retention of knowledge or even patient care outcomes.”

[email protected]

Leadership and “fun” are not often linked in the same sentence, let alone in the same word. However, as a student, observer, and teacher of leadership, I find that leaders who are having fun in their practice deftly share the energy, engagement, appeal, dedication, exuberance, and pleasure with others.

Imagine going to work and meeting all those qualities at the front door. Leaders who are having fun impart that same joy to others. It’s a great source of motivation, problem solving capacity, and morale enhancement. And when the going gets tough, it helps you and others make it through.

What takes the fun out of leadership? There are difficult decisions, complicated personalities, messy histories, conflict, and, of course, the “buck stops here” responsibility. Leadership is a lot of work, going above and beyond your clinical duties. Many arrive at leadership positions without the requisite training and preparation, and success at leading can be elusive for reasons you can’t control. There are budget constraints, difficult personalities, laws, and rules. For some leaders, it is an oxymoron to place leadership and fun together. For them, leadership is not fun.

At the 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine Leadership Academy in Vancouver, this combination of fun and leadership arose in a number of my conversations. I asked people if they were having fun. I heard the enjoyment, excitement, amusement, and playfulness of leading. And I could see these leaders – who found fun in their work – were transmitting those very qualities to their followers. They talked about exceptional productivity, expanding programs, heightened commitment, and a knack for overcoming occasional setbacks. In many ways, “work” works better when people are having fun.

How might putting fun into your leadership style, practices, and assessment make you a more effective leader? Start with our definition of leadership: “People follow you.” Whether people follow you, in fact, has to do with a lot more than just fun. Your clinical expertise and skills, your management capabilities, and your devotion to the job all are ingredients in what makes you an effective leader. Add fun into the equation and relationships, loyalty, and commitment assume new value. That value translates into the joy, fulfillment, and pleasure of doing important work with people who matter to you.

I once asked a C-suite leader at Southwest Airlines about fun and leadership. He told me that fun was incorporated into the airline’s company culture. It was also included in his annual performance review: He is responsible for ensuring that his subordinates find working for him to be fun. That week he was hosting a barbecue and fun was on the menu. He explained that this attitude is baked into Southwest philosophy. It transmits out to frontline employees, flight attendants, and gate agents. Their job is making the passengers’ experience safe, comfortable, and, at the same time, fun. That combination has made the company consistently profitable and remarkably resilient. (My wife and her university friend – now both therapists – call this a “fun unit,” which made their grueling graduate school work far more tolerable.)

How do you translate this lesson into your leadership practices? First, don’t expect others to have fun working and following you if you aren’t having fun yourself, or if you are not fun to be with. Assess your own work experience. What is it that you truly enjoy? What tasks and responsibilities detract from that engagement and delight? What provides you that sense of fulfillment and value in what you are doing and the direction you are leading? Dissect your priorities and ask whether your allotment of time and attention track to what is really important. What changes could you make?

Second, ask those same questions of the group of people whom you lead. Assess their experiences, what supports their sense of accomplishment, their satisfaction with their job, and their engagement with the people with whom they work. Every one of your followers is different. However, on the whole, have you built, encouraged, and rewarded team spirit among people who value being together, who are committed to the shared mission, and who together take pride in their achievements?

Finally, ask yourself what would make your work experience and that of your followers more fun? Similarly, what would better engage the patients, family members, and colleagues you serve? Ask a leader you respect – a leader enthusiast – what they find fun in their leading. As you become more engaged, you likely will become a more effective leader, and those who follow you will be so too. What could you do to elevate the work experiences of others and thereby the value, success, and meaning of their work? Fun has many ways to express itself.

Bottom line, ask yourself: Are you someone who others want to work for? Do you care? Can you bring out the best in people because of who you are and what you do?

Your work is as serious as it gets. You are at the cusp of life and death, quality of life decisions, and medical care. The fun comes in putting your all into it and getting the satisfaction and interpersonal bonds that make that effort worthwhile. Often, you have the privilege of making people healthier and happier. What a gift! Excellence can be fun.

Keep an appropriate sense of humor in your pocket and an ample supply of personal and professional curiosity in your backpack. Relish the delight of something or someone new and pleasantly unexpected. The fun for others comes in your rewarding flash of a smile, your laugh, or your approval when it matters most.

Your job as leader is tough. Health care is hard work and the changes and shifts in the health care system are only making it more so. Imagine how a dash of humanity and relationships can make that all far more bearable.

And have fun finding out.

Dr. Marcus is coauthor of “Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration, Second Edition” (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2011) and is director of the program for health care negotiation and conflict resolution at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Marcus teaches regularly in the SHM Leadership Academy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Leadership and “fun” are not often linked in the same sentence, let alone in the same word. However, as a student, observer, and teacher of leadership, I find that leaders who are having fun in their practice deftly share the energy, engagement, appeal, dedication, exuberance, and pleasure with others.

Imagine going to work and meeting all those qualities at the front door. Leaders who are having fun impart that same joy to others. It’s a great source of motivation, problem solving capacity, and morale enhancement. And when the going gets tough, it helps you and others make it through.

What takes the fun out of leadership? There are difficult decisions, complicated personalities, messy histories, conflict, and, of course, the “buck stops here” responsibility. Leadership is a lot of work, going above and beyond your clinical duties. Many arrive at leadership positions without the requisite training and preparation, and success at leading can be elusive for reasons you can’t control. There are budget constraints, difficult personalities, laws, and rules. For some leaders, it is an oxymoron to place leadership and fun together. For them, leadership is not fun.

At the 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine Leadership Academy in Vancouver, this combination of fun and leadership arose in a number of my conversations. I asked people if they were having fun. I heard the enjoyment, excitement, amusement, and playfulness of leading. And I could see these leaders – who found fun in their work – were transmitting those very qualities to their followers. They talked about exceptional productivity, expanding programs, heightened commitment, and a knack for overcoming occasional setbacks. In many ways, “work” works better when people are having fun.

How might putting fun into your leadership style, practices, and assessment make you a more effective leader? Start with our definition of leadership: “People follow you.” Whether people follow you, in fact, has to do with a lot more than just fun. Your clinical expertise and skills, your management capabilities, and your devotion to the job all are ingredients in what makes you an effective leader. Add fun into the equation and relationships, loyalty, and commitment assume new value. That value translates into the joy, fulfillment, and pleasure of doing important work with people who matter to you.

I once asked a C-suite leader at Southwest Airlines about fun and leadership. He told me that fun was incorporated into the airline’s company culture. It was also included in his annual performance review: He is responsible for ensuring that his subordinates find working for him to be fun. That week he was hosting a barbecue and fun was on the menu. He explained that this attitude is baked into Southwest philosophy. It transmits out to frontline employees, flight attendants, and gate agents. Their job is making the passengers’ experience safe, comfortable, and, at the same time, fun. That combination has made the company consistently profitable and remarkably resilient. (My wife and her university friend – now both therapists – call this a “fun unit,” which made their grueling graduate school work far more tolerable.)

How do you translate this lesson into your leadership practices? First, don’t expect others to have fun working and following you if you aren’t having fun yourself, or if you are not fun to be with. Assess your own work experience. What is it that you truly enjoy? What tasks and responsibilities detract from that engagement and delight? What provides you that sense of fulfillment and value in what you are doing and the direction you are leading? Dissect your priorities and ask whether your allotment of time and attention track to what is really important. What changes could you make?

Second, ask those same questions of the group of people whom you lead. Assess their experiences, what supports their sense of accomplishment, their satisfaction with their job, and their engagement with the people with whom they work. Every one of your followers is different. However, on the whole, have you built, encouraged, and rewarded team spirit among people who value being together, who are committed to the shared mission, and who together take pride in their achievements?

Finally, ask yourself what would make your work experience and that of your followers more fun? Similarly, what would better engage the patients, family members, and colleagues you serve? Ask a leader you respect – a leader enthusiast – what they find fun in their leading. As you become more engaged, you likely will become a more effective leader, and those who follow you will be so too. What could you do to elevate the work experiences of others and thereby the value, success, and meaning of their work? Fun has many ways to express itself.

Bottom line, ask yourself: Are you someone who others want to work for? Do you care? Can you bring out the best in people because of who you are and what you do?

Your work is as serious as it gets. You are at the cusp of life and death, quality of life decisions, and medical care. The fun comes in putting your all into it and getting the satisfaction and interpersonal bonds that make that effort worthwhile. Often, you have the privilege of making people healthier and happier. What a gift! Excellence can be fun.

Keep an appropriate sense of humor in your pocket and an ample supply of personal and professional curiosity in your backpack. Relish the delight of something or someone new and pleasantly unexpected. The fun for others comes in your rewarding flash of a smile, your laugh, or your approval when it matters most.

Your job as leader is tough. Health care is hard work and the changes and shifts in the health care system are only making it more so. Imagine how a dash of humanity and relationships can make that all far more bearable.

And have fun finding out.

Dr. Marcus is coauthor of “Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration, Second Edition” (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2011) and is director of the program for health care negotiation and conflict resolution at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Marcus teaches regularly in the SHM Leadership Academy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Leadership and “fun” are not often linked in the same sentence, let alone in the same word. However, as a student, observer, and teacher of leadership, I find that leaders who are having fun in their practice deftly share the energy, engagement, appeal, dedication, exuberance, and pleasure with others.

Imagine going to work and meeting all those qualities at the front door. Leaders who are having fun impart that same joy to others. It’s a great source of motivation, problem solving capacity, and morale enhancement. And when the going gets tough, it helps you and others make it through.

What takes the fun out of leadership? There are difficult decisions, complicated personalities, messy histories, conflict, and, of course, the “buck stops here” responsibility. Leadership is a lot of work, going above and beyond your clinical duties. Many arrive at leadership positions without the requisite training and preparation, and success at leading can be elusive for reasons you can’t control. There are budget constraints, difficult personalities, laws, and rules. For some leaders, it is an oxymoron to place leadership and fun together. For them, leadership is not fun.

At the 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine Leadership Academy in Vancouver, this combination of fun and leadership arose in a number of my conversations. I asked people if they were having fun. I heard the enjoyment, excitement, amusement, and playfulness of leading. And I could see these leaders – who found fun in their work – were transmitting those very qualities to their followers. They talked about exceptional productivity, expanding programs, heightened commitment, and a knack for overcoming occasional setbacks. In many ways, “work” works better when people are having fun.

How might putting fun into your leadership style, practices, and assessment make you a more effective leader? Start with our definition of leadership: “People follow you.” Whether people follow you, in fact, has to do with a lot more than just fun. Your clinical expertise and skills, your management capabilities, and your devotion to the job all are ingredients in what makes you an effective leader. Add fun into the equation and relationships, loyalty, and commitment assume new value. That value translates into the joy, fulfillment, and pleasure of doing important work with people who matter to you.

I once asked a C-suite leader at Southwest Airlines about fun and leadership. He told me that fun was incorporated into the airline’s company culture. It was also included in his annual performance review: He is responsible for ensuring that his subordinates find working for him to be fun. That week he was hosting a barbecue and fun was on the menu. He explained that this attitude is baked into Southwest philosophy. It transmits out to frontline employees, flight attendants, and gate agents. Their job is making the passengers’ experience safe, comfortable, and, at the same time, fun. That combination has made the company consistently profitable and remarkably resilient. (My wife and her university friend – now both therapists – call this a “fun unit,” which made their grueling graduate school work far more tolerable.)

How do you translate this lesson into your leadership practices? First, don’t expect others to have fun working and following you if you aren’t having fun yourself, or if you are not fun to be with. Assess your own work experience. What is it that you truly enjoy? What tasks and responsibilities detract from that engagement and delight? What provides you that sense of fulfillment and value in what you are doing and the direction you are leading? Dissect your priorities and ask whether your allotment of time and attention track to what is really important. What changes could you make?

Second, ask those same questions of the group of people whom you lead. Assess their experiences, what supports their sense of accomplishment, their satisfaction with their job, and their engagement with the people with whom they work. Every one of your followers is different. However, on the whole, have you built, encouraged, and rewarded team spirit among people who value being together, who are committed to the shared mission, and who together take pride in their achievements?

Finally, ask yourself what would make your work experience and that of your followers more fun? Similarly, what would better engage the patients, family members, and colleagues you serve? Ask a leader you respect – a leader enthusiast – what they find fun in their leading. As you become more engaged, you likely will become a more effective leader, and those who follow you will be so too. What could you do to elevate the work experiences of others and thereby the value, success, and meaning of their work? Fun has many ways to express itself.

Bottom line, ask yourself: Are you someone who others want to work for? Do you care? Can you bring out the best in people because of who you are and what you do?

Your work is as serious as it gets. You are at the cusp of life and death, quality of life decisions, and medical care. The fun comes in putting your all into it and getting the satisfaction and interpersonal bonds that make that effort worthwhile. Often, you have the privilege of making people healthier and happier. What a gift! Excellence can be fun.

Keep an appropriate sense of humor in your pocket and an ample supply of personal and professional curiosity in your backpack. Relish the delight of something or someone new and pleasantly unexpected. The fun for others comes in your rewarding flash of a smile, your laugh, or your approval when it matters most.

Your job as leader is tough. Health care is hard work and the changes and shifts in the health care system are only making it more so. Imagine how a dash of humanity and relationships can make that all far more bearable.

And have fun finding out.

Dr. Marcus is coauthor of “Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration, Second Edition” (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2011) and is director of the program for health care negotiation and conflict resolution at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Marcus teaches regularly in the SHM Leadership Academy. He can be reached at [email protected].

More than 1,625 pediatricians have applied to take the first pediatric hospitalist certification exam in November 2019, and approximately 93% of them have been accepted, according to a statement from the American Board of Pediatrics.

It was the rejection of the 7%, however, that set off a firestorm on the electronic discussion board for American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hospital medicine this summer, and led to a petition to the board to revise its eligibility requirements, ensure that the requirements are fair to women, and bring transparency to its decision process. The petition has more than 1,400 signatures.

Seattle Children’s Hospital and Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital have both said they will not consider board certification in hiring decisions until the situation is resolved.

The American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) declined an interview request pending its formal response to the Aug. 6 petition, but in a statement to this news organization, executive vice president Suzanne Woods, MD, said, “The percentage of women and men meeting the eligibility requirements for the exam did not differ. We stress this point because a concern about possible gender bias appears to have been the principal reason for this ... petition, and we wanted to offer immediate reassurance that no unintended bias has occurred.”

“We are carefully considering the requests and will release detailed data to hospitalists on the AAP’s [pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) electronic discussion board] ... and on the ABP’s website. We are conferring with ABP PHM subboard members as well as leaders from our volunteer community. We expect to provide a thoughtful response within the next 3 weeks,” Dr. Woods said in the Aug. 15 statement.
 

“Case-by-case” exceptions

The backstory is that, for better or worse depending on who you talk to, pediatric hospital medicine is becoming a board certified subspecialty. A fellowship will be required to sit for the exam after a few years, which is standard for subspecialties.

What’s generated concern is how the board is grandfathering current pediatric hospitalists into certification via a “practice pathway” until the fellowship requirement takes hold after 2023.

To qualify for the November test, hospitalists had to complete 4 years of full-time practice by June 30, 2019, which has been understood to mean 48 months of continual employment. At least 50% of that time had to be devoted to “professional activities ... related to the care of hospitalized children,” and at least 25% of that “devoted to direct patient care.” Assuming about 2,000 work hours per year, it translated to “450-500 hours” of direct patient care “per year over the most recent four years” to sit for the test, the board said.

“For individuals who have interrupted practice during the most recent four years for family leave or other such circumstances, an exception may be considered if there is substantial prior experience in pediatric hospital medicine. ... Such exceptions are made at the discretion of the ABP and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.” Specific criteria for exceptions were not spelled out.

In the end, there were more than a few surprises when denial letters went out in recent months, and scores of appeals have been filed. There’s “a lot of tension and a lot of confusion” about why some people with practice gaps during the 4 years were approved, but others were denied. There’s been “a lack of transparency on the ABP’s part,” said H. Barrett Fromme, MD, section chief of pediatric hospital medicine and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
 

“The standard has to be reasonable”

There are concerns about the availability of fellowship slots and other issues, but the 4-year rule – instead of averaging clinical hours over 4 or 5 years, for instance – is the main sticking point. It’s a gender issue because “women take maternity; women move with their spouse; women take care of elders; women tend to be in these roles that require time off” more than men do, Dr. Fromme said.

Until the board releases its data, the gender breakdown of the denials and the degree to which practice gaps due to such issues led to them is unknown. There’s concern that women have been unfairly penalized.

The storm was set off on the discussion board this summer by stories from physicians such as Chandani DeZure, MD, a pediatric hospitalist currently working in the neonatal ICU at Stanford (Calif.) University. She was denied a seat at the table in November, appealed, and was denied again.

She was a full-time pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, from 2014, when she graduated residency, until Oct. 2018, when her husband, also a doctor, was offered a promising research position in California, and “we decided to take it,” Dr. DeZure said.

They moved to California with their young son in November. Dr. DeZure got her California medical license in 6 weeks, was hired by Stanford in January, and started her new postion in mid-April.

Because of the move, she worked only 3.5 years in the board’s 4 year practice window, but, as is common with young physicians, that time was spent in direct patient care, for a total of over 6,000 hours.

“How is that not good enough? How is a person that worked 500 hours with patients for 4 years” – for a total of 2,000 hours – “better qualified than someone who worked 100% for 3 and a half years? Nobody is saying there shouldn’t be a standard, but the standard has to be reasonable,” Dr. DeZure said.
 

“Illegal regardless of intent”

It’s situations like Dr. DeZure’s that led to the petition. One of demands is that ABP “revise the practice pathway criteria to be more inclusive of applicants with interrupted practice and varied clinical experience, to include clear-cut parameters rather than considering these applications on a closed-door ‘case-by-case basis...at the discretion of the ABP.’ ” Also, the petition asks the board to “clarify the appeals process and improve responsiveness to appeals and inquiries regarding denials.”

As ABP noted in its statement, however, the major demand is that the board “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias is present.” The petition noted that signers “do not suspect intentional bias on the part of the ABP; however, if gender bias is present it is unethical and potentially illegal regardless of intent.”

For now, the perception is that the board has “a hard 48-month rule” with not many exceptions; there are people who are “very concerned that, ‘Oh my gosh, I can’t have children for 4 years because I won’t be able to sit for the boards.’ No one should ever have to have that in their head,” Dr. Fromme said. At this point, it seems that 3 months off for maternity is being grandfathered in, but perhaps not 6 months for a second child; no one knows for sure.

Dr. DeZure, meanwhile, continues to study for the board exam, just in case.

Looking back over the past year, she said “I could have somehow picked up one shift a week moonlighting that would have kept me eligible, but the [board] didn’t respond to me” when contacted about her situation during the California move.

“The other option was for me was to live cross country from my husband with a small child,” she said.

[email protected]

More than 1,625 pediatricians have applied to take the first pediatric hospitalist certification exam in November 2019, and approximately 93% of them have been accepted, according to a statement from the American Board of Pediatrics.

It was the rejection of the 7%, however, that set off a firestorm on the electronic discussion board for American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hospital medicine this summer, and led to a petition to the board to revise its eligibility requirements, ensure that the requirements are fair to women, and bring transparency to its decision process. The petition has more than 1,400 signatures.

Seattle Children’s Hospital and Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital have both said they will not consider board certification in hiring decisions until the situation is resolved.

The American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) declined an interview request pending its formal response to the Aug. 6 petition, but in a statement to this news organization, executive vice president Suzanne Woods, MD, said, “The percentage of women and men meeting the eligibility requirements for the exam did not differ. We stress this point because a concern about possible gender bias appears to have been the principal reason for this ... petition, and we wanted to offer immediate reassurance that no unintended bias has occurred.”

“We are carefully considering the requests and will release detailed data to hospitalists on the AAP’s [pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) electronic discussion board] ... and on the ABP’s website. We are conferring with ABP PHM subboard members as well as leaders from our volunteer community. We expect to provide a thoughtful response within the next 3 weeks,” Dr. Woods said in the Aug. 15 statement.
 

“Case-by-case” exceptions

The backstory is that, for better or worse depending on who you talk to, pediatric hospital medicine is becoming a board certified subspecialty. A fellowship will be required to sit for the exam after a few years, which is standard for subspecialties.

What’s generated concern is how the board is grandfathering current pediatric hospitalists into certification via a “practice pathway” until the fellowship requirement takes hold after 2023.

To qualify for the November test, hospitalists had to complete 4 years of full-time practice by June 30, 2019, which has been understood to mean 48 months of continual employment. At least 50% of that time had to be devoted to “professional activities ... related to the care of hospitalized children,” and at least 25% of that “devoted to direct patient care.” Assuming about 2,000 work hours per year, it translated to “450-500 hours” of direct patient care “per year over the most recent four years” to sit for the test, the board said.

“For individuals who have interrupted practice during the most recent four years for family leave or other such circumstances, an exception may be considered if there is substantial prior experience in pediatric hospital medicine. ... Such exceptions are made at the discretion of the ABP and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.” Specific criteria for exceptions were not spelled out.

In the end, there were more than a few surprises when denial letters went out in recent months, and scores of appeals have been filed. There’s “a lot of tension and a lot of confusion” about why some people with practice gaps during the 4 years were approved, but others were denied. There’s been “a lack of transparency on the ABP’s part,” said H. Barrett Fromme, MD, section chief of pediatric hospital medicine and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
 

“The standard has to be reasonable”

There are concerns about the availability of fellowship slots and other issues, but the 4-year rule – instead of averaging clinical hours over 4 or 5 years, for instance – is the main sticking point. It’s a gender issue because “women take maternity; women move with their spouse; women take care of elders; women tend to be in these roles that require time off” more than men do, Dr. Fromme said.

Until the board releases its data, the gender breakdown of the denials and the degree to which practice gaps due to such issues led to them is unknown. There’s concern that women have been unfairly penalized.

The storm was set off on the discussion board this summer by stories from physicians such as Chandani DeZure, MD, a pediatric hospitalist currently working in the neonatal ICU at Stanford (Calif.) University. She was denied a seat at the table in November, appealed, and was denied again.

She was a full-time pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, from 2014, when she graduated residency, until Oct. 2018, when her husband, also a doctor, was offered a promising research position in California, and “we decided to take it,” Dr. DeZure said.

They moved to California with their young son in November. Dr. DeZure got her California medical license in 6 weeks, was hired by Stanford in January, and started her new postion in mid-April.

Because of the move, she worked only 3.5 years in the board’s 4 year practice window, but, as is common with young physicians, that time was spent in direct patient care, for a total of over 6,000 hours.

“How is that not good enough? How is a person that worked 500 hours with patients for 4 years” – for a total of 2,000 hours – “better qualified than someone who worked 100% for 3 and a half years? Nobody is saying there shouldn’t be a standard, but the standard has to be reasonable,” Dr. DeZure said.
 

“Illegal regardless of intent”

It’s situations like Dr. DeZure’s that led to the petition. One of demands is that ABP “revise the practice pathway criteria to be more inclusive of applicants with interrupted practice and varied clinical experience, to include clear-cut parameters rather than considering these applications on a closed-door ‘case-by-case basis...at the discretion of the ABP.’ ” Also, the petition asks the board to “clarify the appeals process and improve responsiveness to appeals and inquiries regarding denials.”

As ABP noted in its statement, however, the major demand is that the board “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias is present.” The petition noted that signers “do not suspect intentional bias on the part of the ABP; however, if gender bias is present it is unethical and potentially illegal regardless of intent.”

For now, the perception is that the board has “a hard 48-month rule” with not many exceptions; there are people who are “very concerned that, ‘Oh my gosh, I can’t have children for 4 years because I won’t be able to sit for the boards.’ No one should ever have to have that in their head,” Dr. Fromme said. At this point, it seems that 3 months off for maternity is being grandfathered in, but perhaps not 6 months for a second child; no one knows for sure.

Dr. DeZure, meanwhile, continues to study for the board exam, just in case.

Looking back over the past year, she said “I could have somehow picked up one shift a week moonlighting that would have kept me eligible, but the [board] didn’t respond to me” when contacted about her situation during the California move.

“The other option was for me was to live cross country from my husband with a small child,” she said.

[email protected]

More than 1,625 pediatricians have applied to take the first pediatric hospitalist certification exam in November 2019, and approximately 93% of them have been accepted, according to a statement from the American Board of Pediatrics.

It was the rejection of the 7%, however, that set off a firestorm on the electronic discussion board for American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hospital medicine this summer, and led to a petition to the board to revise its eligibility requirements, ensure that the requirements are fair to women, and bring transparency to its decision process. The petition has more than 1,400 signatures.

Seattle Children’s Hospital and Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital have both said they will not consider board certification in hiring decisions until the situation is resolved.

The American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) declined an interview request pending its formal response to the Aug. 6 petition, but in a statement to this news organization, executive vice president Suzanne Woods, MD, said, “The percentage of women and men meeting the eligibility requirements for the exam did not differ. We stress this point because a concern about possible gender bias appears to have been the principal reason for this ... petition, and we wanted to offer immediate reassurance that no unintended bias has occurred.”

“We are carefully considering the requests and will release detailed data to hospitalists on the AAP’s [pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) electronic discussion board] ... and on the ABP’s website. We are conferring with ABP PHM subboard members as well as leaders from our volunteer community. We expect to provide a thoughtful response within the next 3 weeks,” Dr. Woods said in the Aug. 15 statement.
 

“Case-by-case” exceptions

The backstory is that, for better or worse depending on who you talk to, pediatric hospital medicine is becoming a board certified subspecialty. A fellowship will be required to sit for the exam after a few years, which is standard for subspecialties.

What’s generated concern is how the board is grandfathering current pediatric hospitalists into certification via a “practice pathway” until the fellowship requirement takes hold after 2023.

To qualify for the November test, hospitalists had to complete 4 years of full-time practice by June 30, 2019, which has been understood to mean 48 months of continual employment. At least 50% of that time had to be devoted to “professional activities ... related to the care of hospitalized children,” and at least 25% of that “devoted to direct patient care.” Assuming about 2,000 work hours per year, it translated to “450-500 hours” of direct patient care “per year over the most recent four years” to sit for the test, the board said.

“For individuals who have interrupted practice during the most recent four years for family leave or other such circumstances, an exception may be considered if there is substantial prior experience in pediatric hospital medicine. ... Such exceptions are made at the discretion of the ABP and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.” Specific criteria for exceptions were not spelled out.

In the end, there were more than a few surprises when denial letters went out in recent months, and scores of appeals have been filed. There’s “a lot of tension and a lot of confusion” about why some people with practice gaps during the 4 years were approved, but others were denied. There’s been “a lack of transparency on the ABP’s part,” said H. Barrett Fromme, MD, section chief of pediatric hospital medicine and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
 

“The standard has to be reasonable”

There are concerns about the availability of fellowship slots and other issues, but the 4-year rule – instead of averaging clinical hours over 4 or 5 years, for instance – is the main sticking point. It’s a gender issue because “women take maternity; women move with their spouse; women take care of elders; women tend to be in these roles that require time off” more than men do, Dr. Fromme said.

Until the board releases its data, the gender breakdown of the denials and the degree to which practice gaps due to such issues led to them is unknown. There’s concern that women have been unfairly penalized.

The storm was set off on the discussion board this summer by stories from physicians such as Chandani DeZure, MD, a pediatric hospitalist currently working in the neonatal ICU at Stanford (Calif.) University. She was denied a seat at the table in November, appealed, and was denied again.

She was a full-time pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, from 2014, when she graduated residency, until Oct. 2018, when her husband, also a doctor, was offered a promising research position in California, and “we decided to take it,” Dr. DeZure said.

They moved to California with their young son in November. Dr. DeZure got her California medical license in 6 weeks, was hired by Stanford in January, and started her new postion in mid-April.

Because of the move, she worked only 3.5 years in the board’s 4 year practice window, but, as is common with young physicians, that time was spent in direct patient care, for a total of over 6,000 hours.

“How is that not good enough? How is a person that worked 500 hours with patients for 4 years” – for a total of 2,000 hours – “better qualified than someone who worked 100% for 3 and a half years? Nobody is saying there shouldn’t be a standard, but the standard has to be reasonable,” Dr. DeZure said.
 

“Illegal regardless of intent”

It’s situations like Dr. DeZure’s that led to the petition. One of demands is that ABP “revise the practice pathway criteria to be more inclusive of applicants with interrupted practice and varied clinical experience, to include clear-cut parameters rather than considering these applications on a closed-door ‘case-by-case basis...at the discretion of the ABP.’ ” Also, the petition asks the board to “clarify the appeals process and improve responsiveness to appeals and inquiries regarding denials.”

As ABP noted in its statement, however, the major demand is that the board “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias is present.” The petition noted that signers “do not suspect intentional bias on the part of the ABP; however, if gender bias is present it is unethical and potentially illegal regardless of intent.”

For now, the perception is that the board has “a hard 48-month rule” with not many exceptions; there are people who are “very concerned that, ‘Oh my gosh, I can’t have children for 4 years because I won’t be able to sit for the boards.’ No one should ever have to have that in their head,” Dr. Fromme said. At this point, it seems that 3 months off for maternity is being grandfathered in, but perhaps not 6 months for a second child; no one knows for sure.

Dr. DeZure, meanwhile, continues to study for the board exam, just in case.

Looking back over the past year, she said “I could have somehow picked up one shift a week moonlighting that would have kept me eligible, but the [board] didn’t respond to me” when contacted about her situation during the California move.

“The other option was for me was to live cross country from my husband with a small child,” she said.

[email protected]

I wear a suit every day to work. I count the time between shifts in months, not days. Rather than looking for subtle diagnostic clues hidden in clinical information, I find myself up to my elbows in performance and financial data. Instead of meetings complicated by challenging family dynamics, I spend my time calming the waters between clinical departments that each feel slighted.

And yet, when people ask me what I do, I do not say I am a health system CEO. Rather, I am a hospitalist. I say it, not out of habit, but with pride and clear intention. Almost 20 years ago, I had to explain to my parents what a hospitalist was as I made the transition from primary care doctor to hospitalist. I told them that hospitalists take care of sick people who are in the hospital, but also are charged with making the hospital a better place to take care of people. I hope that in some small way, in every role I have had over the past 20 years as a hospitalist, I have been able to do that.

While the small changes we can all make every day are important, massive changes to health care, hospitals, and providers are coming. The forces driving these changes are manifold, complex, and powerful. Individual hospitalists, hospital groups, and hospitals will be challenged to keep up with responding to these changes. I hope, though, that our field, hospital medicine, will not be sitting there, waiting for the changes to come, but will instead be one of the forces for change.

I also believe that hospital medicine and health care delivery systems should drive the change in a coordinated and collaborative partnership. A partnership not built on self-advocacy but one in which we remember why we exist – to take care of people. A force for change that preserves the essential, evolves what needs improvement, and revolutionizes the archaic.

Partnerships between hospitalist groups and health care administration will always face the day-to-day challenges of balancing the need for resources with the ability to provide them, agreeing on how to measure and assess quality, and aligning rewards with priorities. However, by working together in venues that allow us to think beyond the day-to-day issues, we in hospital medicine will be leaders in the change that is coming. I believe that today, the Society of Hospital Medicine must be one of those venues. Through its committees, meetings, advocacy, publications, and most importantly, members, SHM will continue to shape the future of care delivery in this country and beyond.

SHM has been my professional home for almost 20 years, helping me think about how to make the hospital a better place to take care of people. Recent examples of SHM and its members partnering in this area include advocacy work to improve alternative payment models, such as Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), as well as educational efforts for its members on how to navigate the current rules around MACRA.

For many years, SHM has been the leader in professional organizations for leading the way on quality improvement. Through the Center for Quality Improvement, SHM not only offers robust educational tools to better enable members to lead efforts at their home institutions but also has led multi-institutional efforts to reduce harm that have been recognized nationally for their impact.

As we move further down the path from volume to value toward population health, the SHM Board will be sure that the society continues to be a leader for both its members and the health system at large as we face these changes. We have the opportunity in front of us to collectively embrace and create the changes coming toward us with that shared purpose of making wherever it is that we care for people better places to provide that care. How could one not be proud to say, with intent, “I am a hospitalist,” regardless of what it is that brings each of us to SHM.
 

Dr. Whelan is CEO of Banner–University Medical Center Tucson (Ariz.) and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

I wear a suit every day to work. I count the time between shifts in months, not days. Rather than looking for subtle diagnostic clues hidden in clinical information, I find myself up to my elbows in performance and financial data. Instead of meetings complicated by challenging family dynamics, I spend my time calming the waters between clinical departments that each feel slighted.

And yet, when people ask me what I do, I do not say I am a health system CEO. Rather, I am a hospitalist. I say it, not out of habit, but with pride and clear intention. Almost 20 years ago, I had to explain to my parents what a hospitalist was as I made the transition from primary care doctor to hospitalist. I told them that hospitalists take care of sick people who are in the hospital, but also are charged with making the hospital a better place to take care of people. I hope that in some small way, in every role I have had over the past 20 years as a hospitalist, I have been able to do that.

While the small changes we can all make every day are important, massive changes to health care, hospitals, and providers are coming. The forces driving these changes are manifold, complex, and powerful. Individual hospitalists, hospital groups, and hospitals will be challenged to keep up with responding to these changes. I hope, though, that our field, hospital medicine, will not be sitting there, waiting for the changes to come, but will instead be one of the forces for change.

I also believe that hospital medicine and health care delivery systems should drive the change in a coordinated and collaborative partnership. A partnership not built on self-advocacy but one in which we remember why we exist – to take care of people. A force for change that preserves the essential, evolves what needs improvement, and revolutionizes the archaic.

Partnerships between hospitalist groups and health care administration will always face the day-to-day challenges of balancing the need for resources with the ability to provide them, agreeing on how to measure and assess quality, and aligning rewards with priorities. However, by working together in venues that allow us to think beyond the day-to-day issues, we in hospital medicine will be leaders in the change that is coming. I believe that today, the Society of Hospital Medicine must be one of those venues. Through its committees, meetings, advocacy, publications, and most importantly, members, SHM will continue to shape the future of care delivery in this country and beyond.

SHM has been my professional home for almost 20 years, helping me think about how to make the hospital a better place to take care of people. Recent examples of SHM and its members partnering in this area include advocacy work to improve alternative payment models, such as Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), as well as educational efforts for its members on how to navigate the current rules around MACRA.

For many years, SHM has been the leader in professional organizations for leading the way on quality improvement. Through the Center for Quality Improvement, SHM not only offers robust educational tools to better enable members to lead efforts at their home institutions but also has led multi-institutional efforts to reduce harm that have been recognized nationally for their impact.

As we move further down the path from volume to value toward population health, the SHM Board will be sure that the society continues to be a leader for both its members and the health system at large as we face these changes. We have the opportunity in front of us to collectively embrace and create the changes coming toward us with that shared purpose of making wherever it is that we care for people better places to provide that care. How could one not be proud to say, with intent, “I am a hospitalist,” regardless of what it is that brings each of us to SHM.
 

Dr. Whelan is CEO of Banner–University Medical Center Tucson (Ariz.) and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

I wear a suit every day to work. I count the time between shifts in months, not days. Rather than looking for subtle diagnostic clues hidden in clinical information, I find myself up to my elbows in performance and financial data. Instead of meetings complicated by challenging family dynamics, I spend my time calming the waters between clinical departments that each feel slighted.

And yet, when people ask me what I do, I do not say I am a health system CEO. Rather, I am a hospitalist. I say it, not out of habit, but with pride and clear intention. Almost 20 years ago, I had to explain to my parents what a hospitalist was as I made the transition from primary care doctor to hospitalist. I told them that hospitalists take care of sick people who are in the hospital, but also are charged with making the hospital a better place to take care of people. I hope that in some small way, in every role I have had over the past 20 years as a hospitalist, I have been able to do that.

While the small changes we can all make every day are important, massive changes to health care, hospitals, and providers are coming. The forces driving these changes are manifold, complex, and powerful. Individual hospitalists, hospital groups, and hospitals will be challenged to keep up with responding to these changes. I hope, though, that our field, hospital medicine, will not be sitting there, waiting for the changes to come, but will instead be one of the forces for change.

I also believe that hospital medicine and health care delivery systems should drive the change in a coordinated and collaborative partnership. A partnership not built on self-advocacy but one in which we remember why we exist – to take care of people. A force for change that preserves the essential, evolves what needs improvement, and revolutionizes the archaic.

Partnerships between hospitalist groups and health care administration will always face the day-to-day challenges of balancing the need for resources with the ability to provide them, agreeing on how to measure and assess quality, and aligning rewards with priorities. However, by working together in venues that allow us to think beyond the day-to-day issues, we in hospital medicine will be leaders in the change that is coming. I believe that today, the Society of Hospital Medicine must be one of those venues. Through its committees, meetings, advocacy, publications, and most importantly, members, SHM will continue to shape the future of care delivery in this country and beyond.

SHM has been my professional home for almost 20 years, helping me think about how to make the hospital a better place to take care of people. Recent examples of SHM and its members partnering in this area include advocacy work to improve alternative payment models, such as Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), as well as educational efforts for its members on how to navigate the current rules around MACRA.

For many years, SHM has been the leader in professional organizations for leading the way on quality improvement. Through the Center for Quality Improvement, SHM not only offers robust educational tools to better enable members to lead efforts at their home institutions but also has led multi-institutional efforts to reduce harm that have been recognized nationally for their impact.

As we move further down the path from volume to value toward population health, the SHM Board will be sure that the society continues to be a leader for both its members and the health system at large as we face these changes. We have the opportunity in front of us to collectively embrace and create the changes coming toward us with that shared purpose of making wherever it is that we care for people better places to provide that care. How could one not be proud to say, with intent, “I am a hospitalist,” regardless of what it is that brings each of us to SHM.
 

Dr. Whelan is CEO of Banner–University Medical Center Tucson (Ariz.) and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

It’s Monday morning, and your intern is presenting an overnight admission. Lost in the details of his disorganized introduction, your mind wanders. “Why doesn’t this intern know how to present? When I trained, all those admissions during long sleepless nights really taught me to do this right.” But can we equate hours worked with competency achieved? And if not, what is the alternative? This article introduces some major changes in medical education and their implications for hospitalists.

Most hospitalists trained in an educational system influenced by Sir William Osler. In the early 1900s, he introduced the natural method of teaching, positing that student exposure to patients and experience over time ensured that physicians in training would become competent doctors.¹ His influence led to the current structure of medical education, which includes conventional third-year clerkships and time-limited rotations (such as a 2-week nephrology block).

While familiarity may be comforting, there are signs our current model of medical education is inefficient, inadequate, and obsolete.

For one, the traditional system is failing to adequately prepare physicians to provide safe and complex care. Reports, such as the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “To Err is Human,”² describe a high rate of preventable errors, highlighting considerable room for improvement in training the next generation of physicians.^3,4

Meanwhile, trainees are still largely being deemed ready for the workforce by length of training completed (for example, completion of four-year medical school) rather than a skill set distinctly achieved. Our system leaves little flexibility to individualize learner goals, which is significant given some students and residents take shorter or longer periods of time to achieve proficiency. In addition, learner outcomes can be quite variable, as we have all experienced.

Even our methods of assessment may not adequately evaluate trainees’ skill sets. For example, most clerkships still rely heavily on the shelf exam⁵ as a surrogate for medical knowledge. As such, learners may conclude that testing performance trumps development of other professional skills.⁶ Efforts are being made to revamp evaluation systems to reflect mastery (such as Entrustable Professional Activities, or EPAs) toward competencies.⁷ Still, many institutions continue to rely on faculty evaluations that often reflect interpersonal dynamics rather than true critical thinking skills.⁶

Recognizing the above limitations, many educators have called for changing to outcome-based, or competency-based, training (CBME). CBME targets attainment of skills in performing concrete critical clinical activities,⁸ such as identifying unstable patients, providing initial management, and obtaining help. To be successful, supervisors must directly observe trainees, assess demonstrated skills, and provide feedback about progress.

Unfortunately, this considerable investment of time and effort is often poorly compensated. Additionally, unanswered questions remain. For example, how will residency programs continue to challenge physicians deemed “competent” in a required skill? What happens when a trainee is deficient and not appropriately progressing in a required skill? Is flexible training time part of the future of medical education? While CBME appears to be a more effective method of education, questions like these must be addressed during implementation.

Beyond the fact that hours worked cannot be used as a surrogate for competency, excessive unregulated work hours can be detrimental to learners, their supervisors, and patients. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented a major change in medical education: duty hour limitations. The premise that sleep-deprived providers are more prone to error is well established. However, controversy remains as to whether these regulations translate into improved patient care and provider well-being. Studies published following the ACGME change demonstrate increasing burnout among physicians,^9-11 which has led some educators to explore the potential relationship between burnout and duty hour restrictions.

The recent “iCOMPARE” trial, which compared internal medicine (IM) residencies with “standard duty-hour” policies to those with “flexible” policies (that is, they did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts), supported a lack of correlation between hours worked and burnout.¹² Researchers administered the Maslach Burnout Inventory to all participants.¹³ While those in the “flexible hours” arm reported greater dissatisfaction with the effect of the program on their personal lives, both groups reported significant burnout, with interns recording high scores in emotional exhaustion (79% in flexible programs vs. 72% in standard), depersonalization (75% vs. 72%), and lack of personal accomplishment (71% vs. 69%).

Disturbingly, these scores were not restricted to interns but were present in all residents. The good news? Limiting duty hours does not cause burnout. On the other hand, it does not protect from burnout. Trainee burnout appears to transcend the issue of hours worked. Clearly, we need to address the systemic flaws in our work environments that contribute to this epidemic. Nationwide, educators and organizations are continuing to define causes of burnout and test interventions to improve wellness.

A final front of change in medical education worth mentioning is the use of the electronic medical record (EMR). While the EMR has improved many aspects of patient care, its implementation is associated with decreased time spent with patients and parallels the rise in burnout. Another unforeseen consequence has been its disruptive impact on medical student documentation. A national survey of clerkship directors found that, while 64% of programs allowed students to use the EMR, only two-thirds of those programs permitted students to document electronically.¹⁴

Many institutions limit student access because of either liability concerns or the fact that student notes cannot be used to support medical billing. Concerning workarounds among preceptors, such as logging in students under their own credentials to write notes, have been identified.¹⁵ Yet medical students need to learn how to document a clinical encounter and maintain medical records.^7,16 Authoring notes engages students, promotes a sense of patient ownership, and empowers them to feel like essential team members. Participating in the EMR also allows for critical feedback and skill development.

In 2016, the Society of Hospital Medicine joined several major internal medicine organizations in asking the federal government to reconsider guidelines prohibiting attendings from referring to medical student notes. In February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) revised its student documentation guidelines (see Box A), allowing teaching physicians to use all student documentation (not just Review of Systems, Family History, and Social History) for billable services.

While the guidelines officially went into effect in March 2018, many institutions are still fine-tuning their implementation, in part because of nonspecific policy language. For instance, if a student composes a note and a resident edits and signs it, can the attending physician simply cosign the resident note? Also, once a student has presented a case, can the attending see the patient and verify findings without the student present?

Despite the above challenges, the revision to CMS guidelines is a significant “win” and can potentially reduce the documentation burden on teaching physicians. With more oversight of their notes, the next generation of students will be encouraged to produce accurate, high-quality documentation.

In summary, these changes in the way we define competency, in duty hours, and in the use of the EMR demonstrate that medical education is continuously improving via robust critique and educator engagement in outcomes. We are fortunate to train in a system that respects the scientific method and utilizes data and critical events to drive important changes in practice. Understanding these changes might help hospitalists relate to the backgrounds and needs of learners. And who knows – maybe next time that intern will do a better job presenting!
 

Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS) and an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, in the division of hospital medicine. He is the chair of the SHM Physicians in Training committee. Dr. Sebasky is an associate clinical professor at UCSD in the division of hospital medicine. Dr. Muchmore is a hematologist/oncologist and professor of clinical medicine in the department of medicine at UCSD and associate chief of staff for education at VASDHS.

References

1. Osler W. “The Hospital as a College.” In Aequanimitas. Osler W, Ed. (Philadelphia: P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., 1932).

2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health Care System. (Washington: National Academies Press, 1999).

3. Ten Cate O. Competency-based postgraduate medical education: Past, present and future. GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.3205/zma001146.

4. Carraccio C, Englander R, Van Melle E, et al. Advancing competency-based medical education: A charter for clinician–educators. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):645-9.

5. 2016 NBME Clinical Clerkship Subject Examination Survey.

6. Mehta NB, Hull AL, Young JB, et al. Just imagine: New paradigms for medical education. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1418-23.

7. Fazio SB, Ledford CH, Aronowitz PB, et al. Competency-based medical education in the internal medicine clerkship: A report from the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Undergraduate Medical Education Task Force. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):421-7.

8. Ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: Can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2007 Jun;82(6):542-7.

9. Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, et al. The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015141.

10. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, et al. Healthcare Staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159015.

11. Salyers MP, Bonfils KA, Luther L, et al. The relationship between professional burnout and quality and safety in healthcare: A meta-analysis. Gen Intern Med. 2017 Apr; 32(4):475-82.

12. Desai SV, Asch DA, Bellini LM, et al. Education outcomes in a duty hour flexibility trial in internal medicine. N Engl J Med. 2018 378:1494-508.

13. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach burnout inventory manual. 3rd ed. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1996).

14. Hammoud MM, Margo K, Christner JG, et al. Opportunities and challenges in integrating electronic health records into undergraduate medical education: A national survey of clerkship directors. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(3):219-24.

15. White J, Anthony D, WinklerPrins V, et al. Electronic medical records, medical students, and ambulatory family physicians: A multi-institution study. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1485-90.

16. Pageler NM, Friedman CP, Longhurst CA. Refocusing medical education in the EMR era. JAMA 2013;310(21):2249-50.
 

Box A

“Students may document services in the medical record. However, the teaching physician must verify in the medical record all student documentation or findings, including history, physical exam, and/or medical decision making. The teaching physician must personally perform (or re-perform) the physical exam and medical decision making activities of the E/M service being billed, but may verify any student documentation of them in the medical record, rather than re-documenting this work.”
 

It’s Monday morning, and your intern is presenting an overnight admission. Lost in the details of his disorganized introduction, your mind wanders. “Why doesn’t this intern know how to present? When I trained, all those admissions during long sleepless nights really taught me to do this right.” But can we equate hours worked with competency achieved? And if not, what is the alternative? This article introduces some major changes in medical education and their implications for hospitalists.

Most hospitalists trained in an educational system influenced by Sir William Osler. In the early 1900s, he introduced the natural method of teaching, positing that student exposure to patients and experience over time ensured that physicians in training would become competent doctors.¹ His influence led to the current structure of medical education, which includes conventional third-year clerkships and time-limited rotations (such as a 2-week nephrology block).

While familiarity may be comforting, there are signs our current model of medical education is inefficient, inadequate, and obsolete.

For one, the traditional system is failing to adequately prepare physicians to provide safe and complex care. Reports, such as the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “To Err is Human,”² describe a high rate of preventable errors, highlighting considerable room for improvement in training the next generation of physicians.^3,4

Meanwhile, trainees are still largely being deemed ready for the workforce by length of training completed (for example, completion of four-year medical school) rather than a skill set distinctly achieved. Our system leaves little flexibility to individualize learner goals, which is significant given some students and residents take shorter or longer periods of time to achieve proficiency. In addition, learner outcomes can be quite variable, as we have all experienced.

Even our methods of assessment may not adequately evaluate trainees’ skill sets. For example, most clerkships still rely heavily on the shelf exam⁵ as a surrogate for medical knowledge. As such, learners may conclude that testing performance trumps development of other professional skills.⁶ Efforts are being made to revamp evaluation systems to reflect mastery (such as Entrustable Professional Activities, or EPAs) toward competencies.⁷ Still, many institutions continue to rely on faculty evaluations that often reflect interpersonal dynamics rather than true critical thinking skills.⁶

Recognizing the above limitations, many educators have called for changing to outcome-based, or competency-based, training (CBME). CBME targets attainment of skills in performing concrete critical clinical activities,⁸ such as identifying unstable patients, providing initial management, and obtaining help. To be successful, supervisors must directly observe trainees, assess demonstrated skills, and provide feedback about progress.

Unfortunately, this considerable investment of time and effort is often poorly compensated. Additionally, unanswered questions remain. For example, how will residency programs continue to challenge physicians deemed “competent” in a required skill? What happens when a trainee is deficient and not appropriately progressing in a required skill? Is flexible training time part of the future of medical education? While CBME appears to be a more effective method of education, questions like these must be addressed during implementation.

Beyond the fact that hours worked cannot be used as a surrogate for competency, excessive unregulated work hours can be detrimental to learners, their supervisors, and patients. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented a major change in medical education: duty hour limitations. The premise that sleep-deprived providers are more prone to error is well established. However, controversy remains as to whether these regulations translate into improved patient care and provider well-being. Studies published following the ACGME change demonstrate increasing burnout among physicians,^9-11 which has led some educators to explore the potential relationship between burnout and duty hour restrictions.

The recent “iCOMPARE” trial, which compared internal medicine (IM) residencies with “standard duty-hour” policies to those with “flexible” policies (that is, they did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts), supported a lack of correlation between hours worked and burnout.¹² Researchers administered the Maslach Burnout Inventory to all participants.¹³ While those in the “flexible hours” arm reported greater dissatisfaction with the effect of the program on their personal lives, both groups reported significant burnout, with interns recording high scores in emotional exhaustion (79% in flexible programs vs. 72% in standard), depersonalization (75% vs. 72%), and lack of personal accomplishment (71% vs. 69%).

Disturbingly, these scores were not restricted to interns but were present in all residents. The good news? Limiting duty hours does not cause burnout. On the other hand, it does not protect from burnout. Trainee burnout appears to transcend the issue of hours worked. Clearly, we need to address the systemic flaws in our work environments that contribute to this epidemic. Nationwide, educators and organizations are continuing to define causes of burnout and test interventions to improve wellness.

A final front of change in medical education worth mentioning is the use of the electronic medical record (EMR). While the EMR has improved many aspects of patient care, its implementation is associated with decreased time spent with patients and parallels the rise in burnout. Another unforeseen consequence has been its disruptive impact on medical student documentation. A national survey of clerkship directors found that, while 64% of programs allowed students to use the EMR, only two-thirds of those programs permitted students to document electronically.¹⁴

Many institutions limit student access because of either liability concerns or the fact that student notes cannot be used to support medical billing. Concerning workarounds among preceptors, such as logging in students under their own credentials to write notes, have been identified.¹⁵ Yet medical students need to learn how to document a clinical encounter and maintain medical records.^7,16 Authoring notes engages students, promotes a sense of patient ownership, and empowers them to feel like essential team members. Participating in the EMR also allows for critical feedback and skill development.

In 2016, the Society of Hospital Medicine joined several major internal medicine organizations in asking the federal government to reconsider guidelines prohibiting attendings from referring to medical student notes. In February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) revised its student documentation guidelines (see Box A), allowing teaching physicians to use all student documentation (not just Review of Systems, Family History, and Social History) for billable services.

While the guidelines officially went into effect in March 2018, many institutions are still fine-tuning their implementation, in part because of nonspecific policy language. For instance, if a student composes a note and a resident edits and signs it, can the attending physician simply cosign the resident note? Also, once a student has presented a case, can the attending see the patient and verify findings without the student present?

Despite the above challenges, the revision to CMS guidelines is a significant “win” and can potentially reduce the documentation burden on teaching physicians. With more oversight of their notes, the next generation of students will be encouraged to produce accurate, high-quality documentation.

In summary, these changes in the way we define competency, in duty hours, and in the use of the EMR demonstrate that medical education is continuously improving via robust critique and educator engagement in outcomes. We are fortunate to train in a system that respects the scientific method and utilizes data and critical events to drive important changes in practice. Understanding these changes might help hospitalists relate to the backgrounds and needs of learners. And who knows – maybe next time that intern will do a better job presenting!
 

Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS) and an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, in the division of hospital medicine. He is the chair of the SHM Physicians in Training committee. Dr. Sebasky is an associate clinical professor at UCSD in the division of hospital medicine. Dr. Muchmore is a hematologist/oncologist and professor of clinical medicine in the department of medicine at UCSD and associate chief of staff for education at VASDHS.

References

1. Osler W. “The Hospital as a College.” In Aequanimitas. Osler W, Ed. (Philadelphia: P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., 1932).

2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health Care System. (Washington: National Academies Press, 1999).

3. Ten Cate O. Competency-based postgraduate medical education: Past, present and future. GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.3205/zma001146.

4. Carraccio C, Englander R, Van Melle E, et al. Advancing competency-based medical education: A charter for clinician–educators. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):645-9.

5. 2016 NBME Clinical Clerkship Subject Examination Survey.

6. Mehta NB, Hull AL, Young JB, et al. Just imagine: New paradigms for medical education. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1418-23.

7. Fazio SB, Ledford CH, Aronowitz PB, et al. Competency-based medical education in the internal medicine clerkship: A report from the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Undergraduate Medical Education Task Force. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):421-7.

8. Ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: Can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2007 Jun;82(6):542-7.

9. Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, et al. The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015141.

10. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, et al. Healthcare Staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159015.

11. Salyers MP, Bonfils KA, Luther L, et al. The relationship between professional burnout and quality and safety in healthcare: A meta-analysis. Gen Intern Med. 2017 Apr; 32(4):475-82.

12. Desai SV, Asch DA, Bellini LM, et al. Education outcomes in a duty hour flexibility trial in internal medicine. N Engl J Med. 2018 378:1494-508.

13. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach burnout inventory manual. 3rd ed. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1996).

14. Hammoud MM, Margo K, Christner JG, et al. Opportunities and challenges in integrating electronic health records into undergraduate medical education: A national survey of clerkship directors. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(3):219-24.

15. White J, Anthony D, WinklerPrins V, et al. Electronic medical records, medical students, and ambulatory family physicians: A multi-institution study. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1485-90.

16. Pageler NM, Friedman CP, Longhurst CA. Refocusing medical education in the EMR era. JAMA 2013;310(21):2249-50.
 

Box A

“Students may document services in the medical record. However, the teaching physician must verify in the medical record all student documentation or findings, including history, physical exam, and/or medical decision making. The teaching physician must personally perform (or re-perform) the physical exam and medical decision making activities of the E/M service being billed, but may verify any student documentation of them in the medical record, rather than re-documenting this work.”
 

It’s Monday morning, and your intern is presenting an overnight admission. Lost in the details of his disorganized introduction, your mind wanders. “Why doesn’t this intern know how to present? When I trained, all those admissions during long sleepless nights really taught me to do this right.” But can we equate hours worked with competency achieved? And if not, what is the alternative? This article introduces some major changes in medical education and their implications for hospitalists.

Most hospitalists trained in an educational system influenced by Sir William Osler. In the early 1900s, he introduced the natural method of teaching, positing that student exposure to patients and experience over time ensured that physicians in training would become competent doctors.¹ His influence led to the current structure of medical education, which includes conventional third-year clerkships and time-limited rotations (such as a 2-week nephrology block).

While familiarity may be comforting, there are signs our current model of medical education is inefficient, inadequate, and obsolete.

For one, the traditional system is failing to adequately prepare physicians to provide safe and complex care. Reports, such as the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “To Err is Human,”² describe a high rate of preventable errors, highlighting considerable room for improvement in training the next generation of physicians.^3,4

Meanwhile, trainees are still largely being deemed ready for the workforce by length of training completed (for example, completion of four-year medical school) rather than a skill set distinctly achieved. Our system leaves little flexibility to individualize learner goals, which is significant given some students and residents take shorter or longer periods of time to achieve proficiency. In addition, learner outcomes can be quite variable, as we have all experienced.

Even our methods of assessment may not adequately evaluate trainees’ skill sets. For example, most clerkships still rely heavily on the shelf exam⁵ as a surrogate for medical knowledge. As such, learners may conclude that testing performance trumps development of other professional skills.⁶ Efforts are being made to revamp evaluation systems to reflect mastery (such as Entrustable Professional Activities, or EPAs) toward competencies.⁷ Still, many institutions continue to rely on faculty evaluations that often reflect interpersonal dynamics rather than true critical thinking skills.⁶

Recognizing the above limitations, many educators have called for changing to outcome-based, or competency-based, training (CBME). CBME targets attainment of skills in performing concrete critical clinical activities,⁸ such as identifying unstable patients, providing initial management, and obtaining help. To be successful, supervisors must directly observe trainees, assess demonstrated skills, and provide feedback about progress.

Unfortunately, this considerable investment of time and effort is often poorly compensated. Additionally, unanswered questions remain. For example, how will residency programs continue to challenge physicians deemed “competent” in a required skill? What happens when a trainee is deficient and not appropriately progressing in a required skill? Is flexible training time part of the future of medical education? While CBME appears to be a more effective method of education, questions like these must be addressed during implementation.

Beyond the fact that hours worked cannot be used as a surrogate for competency, excessive unregulated work hours can be detrimental to learners, their supervisors, and patients. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented a major change in medical education: duty hour limitations. The premise that sleep-deprived providers are more prone to error is well established. However, controversy remains as to whether these regulations translate into improved patient care and provider well-being. Studies published following the ACGME change demonstrate increasing burnout among physicians,^9-11 which has led some educators to explore the potential relationship between burnout and duty hour restrictions.

The recent “iCOMPARE” trial, which compared internal medicine (IM) residencies with “standard duty-hour” policies to those with “flexible” policies (that is, they did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts), supported a lack of correlation between hours worked and burnout.¹² Researchers administered the Maslach Burnout Inventory to all participants.¹³ While those in the “flexible hours” arm reported greater dissatisfaction with the effect of the program on their personal lives, both groups reported significant burnout, with interns recording high scores in emotional exhaustion (79% in flexible programs vs. 72% in standard), depersonalization (75% vs. 72%), and lack of personal accomplishment (71% vs. 69%).

Disturbingly, these scores were not restricted to interns but were present in all residents. The good news? Limiting duty hours does not cause burnout. On the other hand, it does not protect from burnout. Trainee burnout appears to transcend the issue of hours worked. Clearly, we need to address the systemic flaws in our work environments that contribute to this epidemic. Nationwide, educators and organizations are continuing to define causes of burnout and test interventions to improve wellness.

A final front of change in medical education worth mentioning is the use of the electronic medical record (EMR). While the EMR has improved many aspects of patient care, its implementation is associated with decreased time spent with patients and parallels the rise in burnout. Another unforeseen consequence has been its disruptive impact on medical student documentation. A national survey of clerkship directors found that, while 64% of programs allowed students to use the EMR, only two-thirds of those programs permitted students to document electronically.¹⁴

Many institutions limit student access because of either liability concerns or the fact that student notes cannot be used to support medical billing. Concerning workarounds among preceptors, such as logging in students under their own credentials to write notes, have been identified.¹⁵ Yet medical students need to learn how to document a clinical encounter and maintain medical records.^7,16 Authoring notes engages students, promotes a sense of patient ownership, and empowers them to feel like essential team members. Participating in the EMR also allows for critical feedback and skill development.

In 2016, the Society of Hospital Medicine joined several major internal medicine organizations in asking the federal government to reconsider guidelines prohibiting attendings from referring to medical student notes. In February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) revised its student documentation guidelines (see Box A), allowing teaching physicians to use all student documentation (not just Review of Systems, Family History, and Social History) for billable services.

While the guidelines officially went into effect in March 2018, many institutions are still fine-tuning their implementation, in part because of nonspecific policy language. For instance, if a student composes a note and a resident edits and signs it, can the attending physician simply cosign the resident note? Also, once a student has presented a case, can the attending see the patient and verify findings without the student present?

Despite the above challenges, the revision to CMS guidelines is a significant “win” and can potentially reduce the documentation burden on teaching physicians. With more oversight of their notes, the next generation of students will be encouraged to produce accurate, high-quality documentation.

In summary, these changes in the way we define competency, in duty hours, and in the use of the EMR demonstrate that medical education is continuously improving via robust critique and educator engagement in outcomes. We are fortunate to train in a system that respects the scientific method and utilizes data and critical events to drive important changes in practice. Understanding these changes might help hospitalists relate to the backgrounds and needs of learners. And who knows – maybe next time that intern will do a better job presenting!
 

Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS) and an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, in the division of hospital medicine. He is the chair of the SHM Physicians in Training committee. Dr. Sebasky is an associate clinical professor at UCSD in the division of hospital medicine. Dr. Muchmore is a hematologist/oncologist and professor of clinical medicine in the department of medicine at UCSD and associate chief of staff for education at VASDHS.

References

1. Osler W. “The Hospital as a College.” In Aequanimitas. Osler W, Ed. (Philadelphia: P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., 1932).

2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health Care System. (Washington: National Academies Press, 1999).

3. Ten Cate O. Competency-based postgraduate medical education: Past, present and future. GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.3205/zma001146.

4. Carraccio C, Englander R, Van Melle E, et al. Advancing competency-based medical education: A charter for clinician–educators. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):645-9.

5. 2016 NBME Clinical Clerkship Subject Examination Survey.

6. Mehta NB, Hull AL, Young JB, et al. Just imagine: New paradigms for medical education. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1418-23.

7. Fazio SB, Ledford CH, Aronowitz PB, et al. Competency-based medical education in the internal medicine clerkship: A report from the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Undergraduate Medical Education Task Force. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):421-7.

8. Ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: Can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2007 Jun;82(6):542-7.

9. Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, et al. The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015141.

10. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, et al. Healthcare Staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159015.

11. Salyers MP, Bonfils KA, Luther L, et al. The relationship between professional burnout and quality and safety in healthcare: A meta-analysis. Gen Intern Med. 2017 Apr; 32(4):475-82.

12. Desai SV, Asch DA, Bellini LM, et al. Education outcomes in a duty hour flexibility trial in internal medicine. N Engl J Med. 2018 378:1494-508.

13. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach burnout inventory manual. 3rd ed. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1996).

14. Hammoud MM, Margo K, Christner JG, et al. Opportunities and challenges in integrating electronic health records into undergraduate medical education: A national survey of clerkship directors. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(3):219-24.

15. White J, Anthony D, WinklerPrins V, et al. Electronic medical records, medical students, and ambulatory family physicians: A multi-institution study. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1485-90.

16. Pageler NM, Friedman CP, Longhurst CA. Refocusing medical education in the EMR era. JAMA 2013;310(21):2249-50.
 

Box A

“Students may document services in the medical record. However, the teaching physician must verify in the medical record all student documentation or findings, including history, physical exam, and/or medical decision making. The teaching physician must personally perform (or re-perform) the physical exam and medical decision making activities of the E/M service being billed, but may verify any student documentation of them in the medical record, rather than re-documenting this work.”
 

Over the past 2 decades, hospital medicine has grown from a nascent collection of hospitalists to one of the fastest growing specialties, with more than 60,000 active practitioners today.

Ten years ago, the need for mentoring and growth of a new generation of young academic faculty led to the development of the first Academic Hospitalist Academy (AHA) through the coordinated efforts of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Association of Clinical Leaders of General Internal Medicine.

As modern medicine moves at an increasing pace, the intersection of patient care, research, and education has opened further opportunities for fostering the expertise of hospital medicine practitioners. The next level of training is now available with the advent of AHA’s Level 2 course.

Ever wonder why the new clinical service you’ve designed to improve physician and patient efficiency isn’t functioning like it did in the beginning? Patients are staying longer in the hospital, and physicians are working harder. The principles of change management, personal leadership styles, and adult learning will be covered in the AHA Level 2 course. How do I get my project funded and then what do I do with the results? Keys to negotiating for time and resources as well as the skills to write and disseminate your work are integrated into the curriculum.

Participants will be engaged in an interactive course designed around the challenges of practicing and leading in an academic environment. AHA Level 2 aims to help attendees – regardless of their areas of interest – identify and acquire the skills necessary to advance their career, describe the business and cultural landscape of academic health systems, and learn how to leverage that knowledge; to list resources and techniques to continue to further build their skills, and identify and pursue their unique scholarly niche.

Based on the success of AHA’s Level 1 course and the feedback from the almost 1,000 participants who have attended, AHA Level 2 is a 2.5-day course that will allow for the exchange of ideas and skills from nationally regarded faculty and fellow attendees. Through plenary sessions, workshops, small groups, and networking opportunities, attendees will be immersed in the realm of modern academic hospital medicine. The new course is offered in parallel with AHA Level 1 at the Inverness Resort, outside of Denver, on Sept. 10-12, 2019.

The course will leave attendees with an individualized career plan and enhance their area of expertise. The lessons learned and shared will allow participants to return to their institutions and continue to lead in the areas of patient care, financial resourcefulness, and the education of current and future generations of hospital medicine specialists.

Dr. O’Dorisio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Over the past 2 decades, hospital medicine has grown from a nascent collection of hospitalists to one of the fastest growing specialties, with more than 60,000 active practitioners today.

Ten years ago, the need for mentoring and growth of a new generation of young academic faculty led to the development of the first Academic Hospitalist Academy (AHA) through the coordinated efforts of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Association of Clinical Leaders of General Internal Medicine.

As modern medicine moves at an increasing pace, the intersection of patient care, research, and education has opened further opportunities for fostering the expertise of hospital medicine practitioners. The next level of training is now available with the advent of AHA’s Level 2 course.

Ever wonder why the new clinical service you’ve designed to improve physician and patient efficiency isn’t functioning like it did in the beginning? Patients are staying longer in the hospital, and physicians are working harder. The principles of change management, personal leadership styles, and adult learning will be covered in the AHA Level 2 course. How do I get my project funded and then what do I do with the results? Keys to negotiating for time and resources as well as the skills to write and disseminate your work are integrated into the curriculum.

Participants will be engaged in an interactive course designed around the challenges of practicing and leading in an academic environment. AHA Level 2 aims to help attendees – regardless of their areas of interest – identify and acquire the skills necessary to advance their career, describe the business and cultural landscape of academic health systems, and learn how to leverage that knowledge; to list resources and techniques to continue to further build their skills, and identify and pursue their unique scholarly niche.

Based on the success of AHA’s Level 1 course and the feedback from the almost 1,000 participants who have attended, AHA Level 2 is a 2.5-day course that will allow for the exchange of ideas and skills from nationally regarded faculty and fellow attendees. Through plenary sessions, workshops, small groups, and networking opportunities, attendees will be immersed in the realm of modern academic hospital medicine. The new course is offered in parallel with AHA Level 1 at the Inverness Resort, outside of Denver, on Sept. 10-12, 2019.

The course will leave attendees with an individualized career plan and enhance their area of expertise. The lessons learned and shared will allow participants to return to their institutions and continue to lead in the areas of patient care, financial resourcefulness, and the education of current and future generations of hospital medicine specialists.

Dr. O’Dorisio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Over the past 2 decades, hospital medicine has grown from a nascent collection of hospitalists to one of the fastest growing specialties, with more than 60,000 active practitioners today.

Ten years ago, the need for mentoring and growth of a new generation of young academic faculty led to the development of the first Academic Hospitalist Academy (AHA) through the coordinated efforts of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Association of Clinical Leaders of General Internal Medicine.

As modern medicine moves at an increasing pace, the intersection of patient care, research, and education has opened further opportunities for fostering the expertise of hospital medicine practitioners. The next level of training is now available with the advent of AHA’s Level 2 course.

Ever wonder why the new clinical service you’ve designed to improve physician and patient efficiency isn’t functioning like it did in the beginning? Patients are staying longer in the hospital, and physicians are working harder. The principles of change management, personal leadership styles, and adult learning will be covered in the AHA Level 2 course. How do I get my project funded and then what do I do with the results? Keys to negotiating for time and resources as well as the skills to write and disseminate your work are integrated into the curriculum.

Participants will be engaged in an interactive course designed around the challenges of practicing and leading in an academic environment. AHA Level 2 aims to help attendees – regardless of their areas of interest – identify and acquire the skills necessary to advance their career, describe the business and cultural landscape of academic health systems, and learn how to leverage that knowledge; to list resources and techniques to continue to further build their skills, and identify and pursue their unique scholarly niche.

Based on the success of AHA’s Level 1 course and the feedback from the almost 1,000 participants who have attended, AHA Level 2 is a 2.5-day course that will allow for the exchange of ideas and skills from nationally regarded faculty and fellow attendees. Through plenary sessions, workshops, small groups, and networking opportunities, attendees will be immersed in the realm of modern academic hospital medicine. The new course is offered in parallel with AHA Level 1 at the Inverness Resort, outside of Denver, on Sept. 10-12, 2019.

The course will leave attendees with an individualized career plan and enhance their area of expertise. The lessons learned and shared will allow participants to return to their institutions and continue to lead in the areas of patient care, financial resourcefulness, and the education of current and future generations of hospital medicine specialists.

Dr. O’Dorisio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

More than two-thirds of physicians have personally experienced some level of burnout, according to a new survey by real-time market insights technology firm InCrowd.

The overall prevalence of personal burnout experience was 68% among respondents, and another 28% said that they had not felt burned out but knew other physicians who had, InCrowd reported Aug. 6.

Specialty appeared to play a part given that 79% of primary care physicians reported experiencing burnout versus 57% of specialists. In response to an open-ended question about ability to manage burnout, the most common answer (23%) was that specialty played a large role, with “no role/all specialties affected equally” next at 13%. Equal proportions of respondents, however, said that specialists (24%) and primary care physicians (24%) were the group most affected, InCrowd said.

There was also a disconnect regarding age. When answering another open-ended question about the effects of age, 23% of those surveyed said that older physicians are more affected, compared with 9% who put the greater burden on younger physicians. The self-reporting of burnout, however, showed that younger physicians were much more likely to experience its effects than their older counterparts: 70% of those aged 30-39 years and 74% of those 40-49 versus 22% of those aged 70-80, InCrowd reported.

InCrowd noted that its results fall within the range of other recent surveys involving burnout in physicians that have shown levels that were lower, at 44% (MedScape, 2019) or 43.9% (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2019), and those that were higher, at 77.8% (The Physicians Foundation/Merritt Hawkins, 2018).

“The alarming persistence of physician burnout over the years and across multiple studies unfortunately demonstrates that we have not yet turned the tide on this problematic issue,” Diane Hayes, PhD, president of InCrowd, said in a statement accompanying the survey results. “Since we last looked at this in 2016, there really haven’t been any notable improvements. The healthcare industry would benefit from refining and expanding current initiatives to assure adequate staffing levels needed to deliver the quality care patients deserve.”

The survey was conducted June 6-7, 2019, and involved responses from 612 physicians (51% primary care providers, 49% specialists).

[email protected]

More than two-thirds of physicians have personally experienced some level of burnout, according to a new survey by real-time market insights technology firm InCrowd.

The overall prevalence of personal burnout experience was 68% among respondents, and another 28% said that they had not felt burned out but knew other physicians who had, InCrowd reported Aug. 6.

Specialty appeared to play a part given that 79% of primary care physicians reported experiencing burnout versus 57% of specialists. In response to an open-ended question about ability to manage burnout, the most common answer (23%) was that specialty played a large role, with “no role/all specialties affected equally” next at 13%. Equal proportions of respondents, however, said that specialists (24%) and primary care physicians (24%) were the group most affected, InCrowd said.

There was also a disconnect regarding age. When answering another open-ended question about the effects of age, 23% of those surveyed said that older physicians are more affected, compared with 9% who put the greater burden on younger physicians. The self-reporting of burnout, however, showed that younger physicians were much more likely to experience its effects than their older counterparts: 70% of those aged 30-39 years and 74% of those 40-49 versus 22% of those aged 70-80, InCrowd reported.

InCrowd noted that its results fall within the range of other recent surveys involving burnout in physicians that have shown levels that were lower, at 44% (MedScape, 2019) or 43.9% (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2019), and those that were higher, at 77.8% (The Physicians Foundation/Merritt Hawkins, 2018).

“The alarming persistence of physician burnout over the years and across multiple studies unfortunately demonstrates that we have not yet turned the tide on this problematic issue,” Diane Hayes, PhD, president of InCrowd, said in a statement accompanying the survey results. “Since we last looked at this in 2016, there really haven’t been any notable improvements. The healthcare industry would benefit from refining and expanding current initiatives to assure adequate staffing levels needed to deliver the quality care patients deserve.”

The survey was conducted June 6-7, 2019, and involved responses from 612 physicians (51% primary care providers, 49% specialists).

[email protected]

More than two-thirds of physicians have personally experienced some level of burnout, according to a new survey by real-time market insights technology firm InCrowd.

The overall prevalence of personal burnout experience was 68% among respondents, and another 28% said that they had not felt burned out but knew other physicians who had, InCrowd reported Aug. 6.

Specialty appeared to play a part given that 79% of primary care physicians reported experiencing burnout versus 57% of specialists. In response to an open-ended question about ability to manage burnout, the most common answer (23%) was that specialty played a large role, with “no role/all specialties affected equally” next at 13%. Equal proportions of respondents, however, said that specialists (24%) and primary care physicians (24%) were the group most affected, InCrowd said.

There was also a disconnect regarding age. When answering another open-ended question about the effects of age, 23% of those surveyed said that older physicians are more affected, compared with 9% who put the greater burden on younger physicians. The self-reporting of burnout, however, showed that younger physicians were much more likely to experience its effects than their older counterparts: 70% of those aged 30-39 years and 74% of those 40-49 versus 22% of those aged 70-80, InCrowd reported.

InCrowd noted that its results fall within the range of other recent surveys involving burnout in physicians that have shown levels that were lower, at 44% (MedScape, 2019) or 43.9% (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2019), and those that were higher, at 77.8% (The Physicians Foundation/Merritt Hawkins, 2018).

“The alarming persistence of physician burnout over the years and across multiple studies unfortunately demonstrates that we have not yet turned the tide on this problematic issue,” Diane Hayes, PhD, president of InCrowd, said in a statement accompanying the survey results. “Since we last looked at this in 2016, there really haven’t been any notable improvements. The healthcare industry would benefit from refining and expanding current initiatives to assure adequate staffing levels needed to deliver the quality care patients deserve.”

The survey was conducted June 6-7, 2019, and involved responses from 612 physicians (51% primary care providers, 49% specialists).

[email protected]