Residency and Fellowship Program Administrator Burnout: Measuring Its Magnitude.
Adult
Burnout, Professional
/ psychology
Cross-Sectional Studies
Databases, Factual
/ statistics & numerical data
Education, Medical, Graduate
Fellowships and Scholarships
Female
Humans
Internship and Residency
Male
Middle Aged
Personnel Turnover
Physician Executives
/ psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Workload
/ psychology
Young Adult
Journal
Journal of graduate medical education
ISSN: 1949-8357
Titre abrégé: J Grad Med Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101521733
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
06
11
2018
revised:
06
05
2019
accepted:
08
05
2019
entrez:
24
8
2019
pubmed:
24
8
2019
medline:
29
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little is known about the level of burnout among program administrators (PAs) working in graduate medical education. We created a national database with baseline burnout data for PAs from residency and fellowship programs, including intention to leave their current positions. A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2017 to assess levels of burnout in a national cohort of PAs, who were largely members of online specialty forums. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was used to measure burnout. Univariate analysis produced descriptive statistics for CBI. We performed a 2-sample Of the approximately 10 205 national PAs, we sampled 1126 (11%). Of the 1126 individuals who received the study information, 931 (83%) completed the baseline survey. Total mean scores for all subscales were elevated (personal: 53.7, SD 21.4; work-related: 52.0, SD 22; and client-related: 30.6, SD 20.8; each scale ranged from 0, low, to 100, high). Burnout scores differed between those contemplating leaving their jobs and those who were not, across all subscales of CBI, including personal (64.2 versus 42.4, -24.18 to -19.44 confidence interval [CI]), work-related (63.5 versus 39.7, -26.12 to -21.35 CI), and client-related (36.6 versus 24.2, -14.95 to -9.84 CI; In this national survey of PAs, burnout scores measured by the CBI were higher among those who had considered leaving their positions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Little is known about the level of burnout among program administrators (PAs) working in graduate medical education.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We created a national database with baseline burnout data for PAs from residency and fellowship programs, including intention to leave their current positions.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2017 to assess levels of burnout in a national cohort of PAs, who were largely members of online specialty forums. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was used to measure burnout. Univariate analysis produced descriptive statistics for CBI. We performed a 2-sample
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the approximately 10 205 national PAs, we sampled 1126 (11%). Of the 1126 individuals who received the study information, 931 (83%) completed the baseline survey. Total mean scores for all subscales were elevated (personal: 53.7, SD 21.4; work-related: 52.0, SD 22; and client-related: 30.6, SD 20.8; each scale ranged from 0, low, to 100, high). Burnout scores differed between those contemplating leaving their jobs and those who were not, across all subscales of CBI, including personal (64.2 versus 42.4, -24.18 to -19.44 confidence interval [CI]), work-related (63.5 versus 39.7, -26.12 to -21.35 CI), and client-related (36.6 versus 24.2, -14.95 to -9.84 CI;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this national survey of PAs, burnout scores measured by the CBI were higher among those who had considered leaving their positions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31440333
doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-18-00860.1
pii: Customer: JGME-D-18-00860
pmc: PMC6699536
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
402-409Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Références
Am J Manag Care. 2001 Jul;7(7):701-13
pubmed: 11464428
BMJ. 2003 Jan 4;326(7379):22
pubmed: 12511457
Health Serv Res. 2004 Oct;39(5):1571-88
pubmed: 15333123
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Aug;51(3):276-87
pubmed: 16033595
Med Care. 2006 Mar;44(3):234-42
pubmed: 16501394
Med Educ. 2007 Aug;41(8):788-800
pubmed: 17661887
Health Care Manage Rev. 2007 Jul-Sep;32(3):203-12
pubmed: 17666991
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
JAMA. 2009 Sep 23;302(12):1294-300
pubmed: 19773564
Eur J Public Health. 2011 Aug;21(4):499-503
pubmed: 20142402
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Mar;212(3):421-2
pubmed: 21356491
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Mar 1;32(7):678-86
pubmed: 24470006
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 10;32(11):1127-35
pubmed: 24616305
J Psychiatr Res. 2015 Jun;65:47-52
pubmed: 25943951
J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Mar;7(1):70-4
pubmed: 26217426
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90(12):1600-13
pubmed: 26653297
Crit Care. 2016 Apr 19;20(1):110
pubmed: 27095501
J Postgrad Med. 2016 Jul-Sep;62(3):157-61
pubmed: 27320952
Healthcare (Basel). 2016 Jun 30;4(3):null
pubmed: 27417625
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Nov;143(2):421-427
pubmed: 27575910
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016 Oct;9:42-7
pubmed: 27634664
Neurology. 2017 Feb 21;88(8):797-808
pubmed: 28122905
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Dec 1;177(12):1826-1832
pubmed: 28973070