School-Based Telemedicine Interventions for Asthma: A Systematic Review.

BackgroundSchool health systems are increasingly investing in telemedicine platforms to address acute and chronic illnesses. Asthma, the most common chronic illness in childhood, is of particular interest given its high burden on school absenteeism.ObjectiveConduct a systematic review evaluating impact of school-based telemedicine programs on improving asthma-related outcomes.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Embase, and Google Scholar.Study eligibility criteriaOriginal research, including quasi-experimental studies, without restriction on the type of telemedicine.ParticipantsSchool-aged pediatric patients with asthma and their families.InterventionsSchool-based telemedicine.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsTwo authors independently screened each abstract, conducted full-text review, assessed study quality, and extracted information. A third author resolved disagreements.ResultsOf 371 articles identified, 7 were included for the review. Outcomes of interest were asthma symptom-free days, asthma symptom frequency, quality of life, health care utilization, school absences, and spirometry. Four of 7 studies reported significant increases in symptom-free days and/or decrease in symptom frequency. Five of 6 reported increases in at least one quality-of-life metric, 2 of 7 reported a decrease in at least 1 health care utilization metric, 1 of 3 showed reductions in school absences, and 1 of 2 reported improvements in spirometry measures.LimitationsVariability in intervention designs and outcome measures make comparisons and quantitative analyses across studies difficult. Only 2 of 7 studies were randomized controlled trials.Conclusions and implications of key findingsHigh-quality evidence supporting the use of school-based telemedicine programs to improve patient outcomes is limited. While available evidence suggests benefit, only 2 comparative trials were identified, and the contribution of telemedicine to these studies' results is unclear

Workplace support for physicians during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Did it affect burnout?

BACKGROUND: A concern before 2020, physician burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little empirical data are available on pandemic workplace support interventions or their influence on burnout. We surveyed a national sample of frontline physicians on burnout and workplace support during the pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed a stratified random sample of 12,833 US physicians most likely to care for adult COVID-19 patients from the comprehensive AMA Physician Professional Data ™ file. The sample included 6722 primary care physicians (3331 family physicians, 3391 internists), 880 hospitalists, 1783 critical care physicians (894 critical care physicians, 889 pulmonary intensivists), 2548 emergency medicine physicians, and 900 infectious disease physicians. The emailed survey elicited physicians perceptions of organizational interventions to provide workplace support and/or to address burnout. Burnout was assessed with the Professional Fulfillment Index Burnout Composite scale (PFI-BC). Proportional specialty representation and response bias were addressed by survey weighting. Logistic regression assessed the association of physician characteristics and workplace interventions with burnout. RESULTS: After weighting, respondents were representative of the total sample. Overall physician burnout was 45.4%, significantly higher than in our previous survey. Open-ended responses mentioned that staffing shortages (physician, nursing, and other staff) combined with the increased volume, complexity, and acuity of patients during the pandemic increased job demands. The most frequent workplace support interventions were direct pandemic control measures (increased access to personal protective equipment, 70.0%); improved telehealth functionality (43.4%); and individual resiliency tools (yoga, meditation, 30.7%). Respondents placed highest priority on workplace interventions to increase financial support and increase nursing and clinician staffing. Factors significantly associated with lower odds of burnout were practicing critical care (compared with emergency medicine) OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 - 0.93), improved telehealth functionality OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.23 - 0.97) and being in practice for 11 years or longer OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.19-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Burnout across frontline specialties increased during the pandemic. Physician respondents focused on inadequate staffing in the context of caring for more and sicker patients, combined with the lack of administrative efforts to mitigate problems. Burnout mitigation requires system-level interventions beyond individual-focused stress reduction programs to improve staffing, increase compensation, and build effective teams

Frontline physician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: national survey findings.

BackgroundPhysician burnout and wellbeing are an ongoing concern. Limited research has reported on the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on burnout over time among U.S. physicians.MethodsWe surveyed U.S. frontline physicians at two time points (wave one in May-June 2020 and wave two in Dec 2020-Jan 2021) using a validated burnout measure. The survey was emailed to a national stratified random sample of family physicians, internists, hospitalists, intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, and infectious disease physicians. Burnout was assessed with the Professional Fulfillment Index Burnout Composite scale (PFI-BC). Responses were weighted to account for sample design and non-response bias. Random effects and quantile regression analyses were used to estimate change in conditional mean and median PFI-BC scores, adjusting for physician, geographic, and pandemic covariates.ResultsIn the random effects regression, conditional mean burnout scores increased in the second wave among all respondents (difference 0.15 (CI: 0.24, 0.57)) and among respondents to both waves (balanced panel) (difference 0.21 (CI: - 0.42, 0.84)). Conditional burnout scores increased in wave 2 among all specialties except for Emergency medicine, with the largest increases among Hospitalists, 0.28 points (CI: - 0.19,0.76) among all respondents and 0.36 (CI: - 0.39,1.11) in the balanced panel, and primary care physicians, 0.21 (CI: - 0.23,0.66) among all respondents and 0.31 (CI: - 0.38,1.00) in the balanced panel. The conditional mean PFI-BC score among hospitalists increased from 1.10 (CI: 0.73,1.46) to 1.38 (CI: 1.02,1.74) in wave 2 in all respondents and from 1.49 (CI: 0.69,2.29) to 1.85 (CI: 1.24,2.46) in the balanced panel, near or above the 1.4 threshold indicating burnout. Findings from quantile regression were consistent with those from random effects.ConclusionsRates of physician burnout during the first year of the pandemic increased over time among four of five frontline specialties, with greatest increases among hospitalist and primary care respondents. Our findings, while not statistically significant, were consistent with worsening burnout; both the random effects and quantile regressions produced similar point estimates. Impacts of the ongoing pandemic on physician burnout warrant further research