Self-rated health of primary care house officers and its relationship to psychological and spiritual well-being

<p/> <p>Background</p> <p>The stress associated with residency training may place house officers at risk for poorer health. We sought to determine the level of self-reported health among resident physicians and to ascertain factors that are associated with their reported health.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A questionnaire was administered to house officers in 4 residency programs at a large Midwestern medical center. Self-rated health was determined by using a health rating scale (ranging from 0 = death to 100 = perfect health) and a Likert scale (ranging from "poor" health to "excellent" health). Independent variables included demographics, residency program type, post-graduate year level, current rotation, depressive symptoms, religious affiliation, religiosity, religious coping, and spirituality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We collected data from 227 subjects (92% response rate). The overall mean (SD) health rating score was 87 (10; range, 40–100), with only 4 (2%) subjects reporting a score of 100; on the Likert scale, only 88 (39%) reported excellent health. Lower health rating scores were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with internal medicine residency program, post-graduate year level, depressive symptoms, and poorer spiritual well-being. In multivariable analyses, lower health rating scores were associated with internal medicine residency program, depressive symptoms, and poorer spiritual well-being.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Residents' self-rated health was poorer than might be expected in a cohort of relatively young physicians and was related to program type, depressive symptoms, and spiritual well-being. Future studies should examine whether treating depressive symptoms and attending to spiritual needs can improve the overall health and well-being of primary care house officers.</p

Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors.

BackgroundEffective mentorship is crucial to career development. Strategies to improve the availability of mentors include mentoring multiple mentees at once, compensating mentors, comentoring, and long-distance mentoring.ObjectiveTo describe current trends in mentorship in general Internal Medicine (GIM).MethodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional web-based survey of GIM mentors, GIM fellowship directors, and GIM National Institutes of Health K24 grant awardees to capture their experiences with mentoring, including compensation for mentorship, multiple mentees, comentorship, and long-distance mentorship. We compared experiences by mentorship funding status, faculty type, academic rank, and sex.ResultsWe collected data from 111 mentors (77% male, 54% full professors, and 68% clinician-investigators). Fifty-two (47%) received funding for mentorship. Mentors supervised a median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) of 5 (3, 8) mentees each, and would be willing to supervise a maximum of 6 (4, 10) mentees at once. Compared with mentors without funding, mentors with funding had more current mentees (mean of 8.3 vs 5.1, respectively; P&lt;.001). Full professors had more current mentees than associate or assistant professors (8.0 vs 5.9 vs 2.4, respectively; P=.005). Ninety-four (85%) mentors had experience comentoring, and two-thirds of mentors had experience mentoring from a distance. Although most mentors found long-distance mentoring to be less demanding, most also said it is less effective for the mentee and is personally less fulfilling.ConclusionsMentors in GIM appear to be close to their mentorship capacity, and the majority lack funding for mentorship. Comentoring and long-distance mentoring are common

Case Investigations of Infectious Diseases Occurring in Workplaces, United States, 2006–2015

Workers in specific settings and activities are at increased risk for certain infectious diseases. When an infectious disease case occurs in a worker, investigators need to understand the mechanisms of disease propagation in the workplace. Few publications have explored these factors in the United States; a literature search yielded 66 investigations of infectious disease occurring in US workplaces during 2006–2015. Reported cases appear to be concentrated in specific industries and occupations, especially the healthcare industry, laboratory workers, animal workers, and public service workers. A hierarchy-of-controls approach can help determine how to implement effective preventive measures in workplaces. Consideration of occupational risk factors and control of occupational exposures will help prevent disease transmission in the workplace and protect workers’ health