Factors Associated with Burnout among Resident Physicians Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A 2-Month Longitudinal Observation Study

Background: Burnout during residency may be a function of intense professional demands and poor work/life balance. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, NYC hospital systems were quickly overwhelmed, and trainees were required to perform beyond the usual clinical duties with less supervision and limited education. Objective: The present longitudinal study examined the effects of COVID-19 caseload over time on burnout experienced by resident physicians and explored the effects of demographic characteristics and organizational and personal factors as predictors of burnout severity. Methods: This study employed a prospective design with repeated measurements from April 2020 to June 2020. Participants were surveyed about their well-being every 5 days. Predictors included caseload, sociodemographic variables, self-efficacy, hospital support, perceived professional development, meaning in work, and postgraduate training level. Results: In total, 54 resident physicians were recruited, of whom 50% reported burnout on initial assessment. Periods of higher caseload were associated with higher burnout. PGY-3 residents reported more burnout initially but appeared to recover faster compared to PGY-1 residents. Examined individually, higher self-efficacy, professional development, meaningful work, and hospital support were associated with lower burnout. When all four predictors were entered simultaneously, only self-efficacy was associated with burnout. However, professional development, meaningful work, and hospital support were associated with self-efficacy. Conclusion: Burnout among residency is prevalent and may have implications for burnout during later stages of a physician’s career. Self-efficacy is associated with lower burnout and interventions to increase self-efficacy and the interpersonal factors that promote self-efficacy may improve physician physical and emotional well-being

An Intensive Longitudinal Assessment Approach to Surveilling Trajectories of Burnout over the First Year of the COVID Pandemic

Frontline clinicians responding to the COVID-19 pandemic are at increased risk of burnout, but less is known about the trajectory of clinician burnout as caseloads increase and decrease. Personal and professional resources, including self-efficacy and hospital support, can attenuate the risk of burnout. Yet, empirical data documenting how burnout and resources changed as the pandemic waxed and waned are limited. This intensive longitudinal prospective study employed ecological momentary assessment methods to examine trajectories of burnout and resources over the pandemic’s first year in a New York City hospital. A 10-item survey was emailed every 5 days to frontline clinicians (physicians, nurses, and physician assistants). The primary outcome was a single-item validated measure of burnout; predictors included daily hospital COVID-19-related caseloads and personal and professional resources. Clinicians (n = 398) completed the initial survey and an average of 12 surveys over the year. Initially, 45.3% of staff reported burnout; over the year, 58.7% reported burnout. Following the initial COVID peak, caseloads declined, and burnout levels declined. During the second wave of COVID, as caseloads increased and remained elevated and personal and professional resource levels decreased, burnout increased. This novel application of intensive longitudinal assessment enabled ongoing surveillance of burnout and permitted us to evaluate how fluctuations in caseload intensity and personal and professional resources related to burnout over time. The surveillance data support the need for intensified resource allocation during prolonged pandemics

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis

10.1016/j.jvs.2020.06.112JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY7241184-

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19.ResultsParticipants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group).ConclusionsImplementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises