Psychological wellness of internal medicine hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of billing reforms on academic hospitalist physician and advanced practice provider collaboration: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Medicare previously announced plans for new billing reforms for inpatient visits that are shared by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) whereby the clinician spending the most time on the patient visit would bill for the visit.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how inpatient hospital medicine teams utilize APPs in patient care and how the proposed billing policies might impact future APP utilization.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted focus groups with hospitalist physicians, APPs, and other leaders from 21 academic hospitals across the United States. Utilizing rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level with templated summaries and matrix analysis. Thirty-three individuals (physicians [n = 21], APPs [n = 10], practice manager [n = 1], and patient representative [n = 1]) participated in six focus groups.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the analysis of the focus groups, including: (1) staffing models with APPs are rapidly evolving, (2) these changes were felt to be driven by staffing shortages, financial models, and governance with minimal consideration to teamwork and relationships, (3) time-based billing was perceived to value tasks over cognitive workload, and (4) that the proposed billing changes may create unintended consequences impacting collaboration and professional satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician and APP collaborative care models are increasingly evolving to independent visits often driven by workloads, financial drivers, and local regulations such as medical staff rules and hospital bylaws. Understanding which staffing models produce optimal patient, clinician, and organizational outcomes should inform billing policies rather than the reverse.

Implementing Longitudinal Wellbeing Interventions and Evaluation Among Midwestern Healthcare Workers During COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers throughout the world has been reported, but most studies have been cross-sectional and excluded the Midwestern U.S. healthcare workforce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to longitudinally assess the psychological wellbeing and wellness strategies used by a Midwestern academic health system's workforce at multiple points throughout waves of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform ongoing implementation of appropriate wellness activities.

METHODS

An anonymous REDCap survey linked within our team-developed wellness education was posted in the employee online newsletter in April (T1), July (T2), October 2020 (T3), and May 2021 (T4). Surveys were open to all employees (approx. 9000) for approximately 12 days at each time point. Anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, self-efficacy, and self-care activities were assessed. Following each data collection, team members discussed findings and planned wellness education implementation.

RESULTS

Response ranged from n = 731 (T1) to n = 172 (T4). Moderate to severe stress was reported by 29.5% (n = 203) of respondents at T1 and 34.0% (n = 108) at T2. At T3, all psychological symptoms significantly increased (p < .001) as COVID-19 surged, with 48.5% (n = 141) of respondents reporting moderate to severe stress. At T4, stress significantly declined (p < .001). Exercise was the most frequently reported coping strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health symptoms reported by a Midwestern healthcare workforce increased during surges of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Individuals in non-patient contact roles experienced symptom levels similar to and at times with greater severity than healthcare personnel with patient contact roles.

Hospitalist Shared Leadership for Safety, Health, and Well-Being at Work: United States, 2022‒2023

We assessed how hospitalists frame workplace safety, health, and well-being (SHW); their perception of hospital supports for SHW; and whether and how they are sharing leadership responsibility for each other's SHW. Our findings highlight the important role of local support for hospitalist SHW and reveal the systemic, hospital-wide problems that may impede their SHW. We believe that positioning hospitalists as leaders for SHW will result in systems-wide changes in practices to support the SHW of all care team members. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S2):S162-S166. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307573).

What Went Right? A Mixed-Methods Study of Positive Feedback Data in a Hospital-Wide Mortality Review Survey

BACKGROUND

Toxic work culture contributes to healthcare worker burnout and attrition, but little is known about how healthcare organizations can systematically create and promote a culture of civility and collegiality.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze peer-to-peer positive feedback collected as part of a systematized mortality review survey to identify themes and recognition dynamics that can inform positive organizational culture change.

DESIGN

Convergent mixed-methods study design.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 388 physicians, 212 registered nurses, 64 advanced practice providers, and 1 respiratory therapist at four non-profit hospitals (2 academic and 2 community).

INTERVENTION

Providing optional positive feedback in the mortality review survey.

MAIN MEASURES

Key themes and subthemes that emerged from positive feedback data, associations between key themes and positive feedback respondent characteristics, and recognition dynamics between positive feedback respondents and recipients.

KEY RESULTS

Approximately 20% of healthcare workers provided positive feedback. Three key themes emerged among responses with free text comments: (1) providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care; (2) demonstrating self-possession and mastery; and (3) exhibiting empathic peer support and effective team collaboration. Compared to other specialties, most positive feedback from medicine (70.2%), neurology (65.2%), hospice and palliative medicine (64.3%), and surgery (58.8%) focused on providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care (p = 0.02), whereas emergency medicine (59.1%) comments predominantly focused on demonstrating self-possession and mastery (p = 0.06). Registered nurses (40.2%) provided multidirectional positive feedback more often than other clinician types in the hospital hierarchy (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of positive feedback from a mortality review survey provided meaningful insights into a health system's culture of teamwork and values related to civility and collegiality when providing end-of-life care. Systematic collection and sharing of positive feedback is feasible and has the potential to promote positive culture change and improve healthcare worker well-being.

The Hospitalist Movement 25 Years Later

Hospitalists are generalists who specialize in the care of hospitalized patients. In the 25 years since the term hospitalist was coined, the field of hospital medicine has grown exponentially and established a substantial footprint in the medical community. There are now more hospitalists than practicing physicians in any other internal medicine subspecialty. Several key forces catalyzed the growth in the field of hospital medicine, including the quality, safety, and value movements; residency duty hour restrictions; the emergence of electronic health records; and the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking ahead, we see new opportunities in the realms of technology and telemedicine, and challenges persist in regard to balancing financial considerations with increasing workload and burnout. Hospitalists must remain nimble and seize emerging opportunities to continue supporting the field's prominence and growth.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Grand Rounds Attendance: Comparison of In-Person and Remote Conferences

BACKGROUND

Many academic medical centers transitioned from in-person to remote conferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the impact on faculty attendance is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate changes in attendance at medical grand rounds (MGR) following the transition from an in-person to remote format and as a function of the COVID-19 census at Vanderbilt Medical Center.

METHODS

We obtained the faculty attendee characteristics from Department of Medicine records. Attendance was recorded using a SMS text message-based system. The daily COVID-19 census was recorded independently by hospital administration. The main attendance metric was the proportion of eligible faculty that attended each MGR. Comparisons were made for the entire cohort and for individual faculty.

RESULTS

The observation period was from March 2019 to June 2021 and included 101 MGR conferences with more than 600 eligible faculty. Overall attendance was unchanged during the in-person and remote formats (12,536/25,808, 48.6% vs 16,727/32,680, 51.2%; P=.44) and did not change significantly during a surge in the COVID-19 census. Individual faculty members attendance rates varied widely. Absolute differences between formats were less than -20% or greater than 20% for one-third (160/476, 33.6%) of faculty. Pulmonary or critical care faculty attendance increased during the remote format compared to in person (1450/2616, 55.4% vs 1004/2045, 49.1%; P<.001). A cloud-based digital archive of MGR lectures was accessed by <1% of faculty per conference.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall faculty attendance at MGR did not change following the transition to a remote format, regardless of the COVID-19 census, but individual attendance habits fluctuated in a bidirectional manner. Incentivizing the use of a digital archive may represent an opportunity to increase faculty consumption of MGR.

Stronger together: learner reactions on a team-based, interprofessional first death simulation experience

Patient death is a common experience that may be traumatic for health care providers. Although current rates of burnout are high, evidence supports that interprofessional coping can improve clinician mental health. While health care simulation affords learners freedom of safety to participate in a variety of educational experiences, current application of simulation during patient death is limited to professional duties, without explicitly addressing learner emotional well-being. We designed a patient death simulation scenario within a supportive and reflective interprofessional environment to teach foundational coping and well-being strategies to preclinical nursing, medical, and pharmacy students. Sixty-one students participated in this team-based, First Death simulation experience. Debriefings were analyzed using qualitative inductive content analysis methodology. Students reacted to being part of an interprofessional team after having participated in simulation about the death of a patient as described by five categories: emotional awareness, communication insight, feeling stronger together, with role curiosity, and through reflections on support. Findings suggested that simulation is an effective teaching modality for mentoring interprofessional students on humanistic well-being strategies. Furthermore, the experience fostered reactions transcending interprofessional competencies, which are transferrable to future clinical practice.

Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Mortality in General Medical Patients: A Systematic Review

Objective

To systematically review contemporary prediction models for hospital mortality developed or validated in general medical patients.

Methods

We screened articles in five databases, from January 1, 2010, through April 7, 2022, and the bibliography of articles selected for final inclusion. We assessed the quality for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and extracted data using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. Two investigators independently screened each article, assessed quality, and extracted data.

Results

From 20,424 unique articles, we identified 15 models in 8 studies across 10 countries. The studies included 280,793 general medical patients and 19,923 hospital deaths. Models included 7 early warning scores, 2 comorbidities indices, and 6 combination models. Ten models were studied in all general medical patients (general models) and 7 in general medical patients with infection (infection models). Of the 15 models, 13 were developed using logistic or Poisson regression and 2 using machine learning methods. Also, 4 of 15 models reported on handling of missing values. None of the infection models had high discrimination, whereas 4 of 10 general models had high discrimination (area under curve >0.8). Only 1 model appropriately assessed calibration. All models had high risk of bias; 4 of 10 general models and 5 of 7 infection models had low concern for applicability for general medical patients.

Conclusion

Mortality prediction models for general medical patients were sparse and differed in quality, applicability, and discrimination. These models require hospital-level validation and/or recalibration in general medical patients to guide mortality reduction interventions.

Depressive and anxiety symptoms in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic among physicians in hospitals: results of the longitudinal, multicenter VOICE-EgePan survey over two years

BACKGROUND

This longitudinal, multicenter web-based study explored the trajectories of depressive and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic among physicians over two years.

METHODS

At four measurement points between 4/2020 and 5/2022 depressive (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, PHQ-2) and anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-2, GAD-2) among physicians in German hospitals were assessed. Time, gender and age effects were analyzed with linear mixed regression models. Comparisons with norm values for the German population during the COVID-19 pandemic were also performed and frequencies of probable depression and anxiety are reported.

RESULTS

The physicians (N = 340) showed a significant increase of depressive symptoms from T1 (M = 1.35, SD = 1.33) to T4 (M = 1.64, SD = 1.34) (p < .001) and of anxiety symptoms from T1 (M = 1.35, SD = 1.42) to T2 (M = 1.59, SD = 1.43) (p = .024). The main effect of gender was only significant for anxiety symptoms (p = .001): women demonstrated higher scores than men. A significant age class difference was observed only for depressive symptoms: the youngest age group (18-40 years) revealed higher values than the oldest group (> 50 years, p = .003). As compared to the general population, the physicians reported significantly elevated PHQ-2 (T1: M = 1.35, SD = 1.33; T2: M = 1.53, SD = 1.37; T3: M = 1.55, SD = 1.40; T4: M = 1.64, SD = 1.34) and GAD-2 scores (T1: M = 1.35, SD = 1.42; T2: M = 1.59, SD = 1.43; T3: M = 1.61, SD = 1.57; T4: M = 1.49, SD = 1.46) for all measurement points (all p < .001). The frequencies of probable depression (PHQ-2 ≥ 3) and anxiety (GAD-2 ≥ 3) were: 14.1% and 17.0% (T1), 16.5% and 21.9% (T2), 17.8% and 22.6% (T3) and 18.5% and 17.3% (T4), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental distress of physicians in German hospitals has increased in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic with gender and age-related differences. Possible causes should be explored and regular monitoring of mental health and prevention programmes for physicians should be established.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on ClinicalTrials (DRKS-ID: DRKS00021268) on 9.4.2020.

Global well-being, anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support among hospitalists during COVID-19 and Mpox outbreaks

OBJECTIVE

The Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a decline in hospitalist wellness. The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, and new outbreaks (i.e. Mpox) have challenged healthcare systems. The objective of the study was to assess changes in hospitalist wellness and guide interventions.

METHODS

We surveyed hospitalists (physicians and advanced practice providers [APPs]), in May 2021 and September 2022, at a healthcare system's 16 hospitals in four US states using PROMIS® measures for global well-being, anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support. We compared wellness score between survey periods; in the September 2022 survey, we compared wellness scores between APPs and physicians and evaluated the associations of demographic and hospital characteristics with wellness using logistic (global well-being) and linear (anxiety, social isolation, emotional support) regression models.

RESULTS

In May 2021 vs. September 2022, respondents showed no statistical difference in top global well-being for mental health (68.4% vs. 57.4%) and social activities and relationships (43.8% vs. 44.3%), anxiety (mean difference: +0.8), social isolation (mean difference: +0.5), and emotional support (mean difference: -1.0) (all, p ≥ 0.05). In September 2022, in logistic regression models, APPs, compared with physicians, had lower odds for top (excellent or very good) global well-being mental health (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.31 [0.13-0.76]; p < 0.05). In linear regression models, age <40 vs. ≥40 years was associated with higher anxiety (estimate ± standard error, 2.43 ± 1.05; p < 0.05), and concern about contracting COVID-19 at work was associated with higher anxiety (3.74 ± 1.10; p < 0.01) and social isolation (3.82 ± 1.21; p < 0.01). None of the characteristics showed association with change in emotional support. In September 2022, there was low concern for contracting Mpox in the community (4.6%) or at work (10.0%).

CONCLUSION

In hospitalists, concern about contracting COVID-19 at work was associated with higher anxiety and social isolation. The unchanged wellness scores between survey periods identified opportunities for intervention. Mpox had apparently minor impact on wellness.

Contributions of Japanese Hospitalists During the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Need for Infectious Disease Crisis Management Education for Hospitalists: An Online Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Hospitalists in Japan have been at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, contributions of Japanese hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic and hospitalists' awareness of crisis management education remain unclear.

Material and Methods

We conducted a questionnaire survey to investigate the role of Japanese hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire was conducted using email and Google Forms targeting the chairpersons of facilities certified by the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine (JSHGM). Members of the academic committee of the JSHGM and several hospitals conducted a narrative review and determined the questions for the survey in a discussion.

Results

We conducted descriptive statistics based on the responses of 97 hospitals that agreed to participate in this survey. In total, 91.8% of general medicine departments in the included hospitals were involved in the medical care of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, in 73.2% of hospitals, hospitalists were involved in infection control for COVID-19 inside or outside the hospital. Our survey revealed that Japanese hospitalists were responsible for COVID-19 treatment in over 60% of hospitals and contributed to hospital management, infection control, and vaccination. In total, 79.4% of hospitals answered that "training of personnel who can provide practical care for emerging infectious diseases is necessary", 78.4% indicated that "the establishment of an infection control system in advance to prepare emerging infectious diseases in the hospital is necessary", and 74.2% stated that "the establishment of an educational system for responding to emerging infectious diseases is necessary.".

Conclusion

In conclusion, during the pandemic, in addition to inpatient care, Japanese hospitalists provided outpatient care for COVID-19, which is the role of primary care physicians in other countries. Furthermore, Japanese hospitalists who experienced the COVID-19 pandemic expressed the need for personnel development and education to prepare for future emerging infectious disease pandemics.

Creating a Comprehensive Pandemic Response to Decrease Hospitalist Burnout During COVID-19: Intervention vs Control Results in 2 Comparable Hospitals (HOSP-CPR)

BACKGROUND

Physician burnout increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal workplace intervention designed to reduce hospitalist burnout.

DESIGN

Participants and setting: Our intervention group was composed of internal medicine hospitalists at Providence Portland Medical Center (64 providers including 58 physicians and 6 nurse practitioners). Our control was composed of internal medicine hospitalists at Providence St Vincent's Hospital (59 physicians and 6 nurse practitioners).

MEASUREMENTS

Two surveys were given during, before, and after a 12-month intervention period (October 2020 and again in October 2021). Surveys included demographics, job satisfaction, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Pandemic Experiences Survey, and 2 questions about leaving the job.

INTERVENTIONS

Three hospitalists designated as wellness warriors created weekly COVID group meetings, providing up-to-date information about COVID-19 infection rates, treatments, and work-flow changes. Discussions included coping and vaccine hesitancy, difficult case debriefs, and intensive care unit updates. Individual coaching was also offered. Meeting minutes were taken and sessions were recorded for asynchronous access.

RESULTS

No site differences in burnout or job satisfaction were evident pre-intervention. Post-intervention, the intervention group reported 32% burnout while controls reported 56% (p = .024). Forty-eight percent of the intervention group reported high wellness support vs. 0% of the controls (< .001). Intervention participants attributed 44% of wellness support to Providence alone, vs. controls at 12% (< .001). Regressions controlling sex, work hours, experience, race, and children in the home showed the intervention's positive effects on burnout and job satisfaction remained significant (all p < .02).

LIMITATIONS

For privacy reasons, all survey responses were anonymous, meaning that individual pre-post changes could not be tracked.

CONCLUSION

We believe the intervention resulted in substantial burnout prevention and is feasible for adoption in most hospitals and clinics.

Building a thriving academic hospitalist workforce: A rapid qualitative analysis identifying key areas of focus in the field

BACKGROUND

The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.

Multisite analysis of patient experience scores and risk of hospital admission: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected patient experience scores may inform risk of patient outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the risk of hospital admission within 30-days following third-party receipt of the patient experience survey and guide interventions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys, January 2016-July 2019, from an institution's 20 hospitals in four U.S. states. Surveys were routinely sent to patients using census sampling. We analyzed surveys received ≤60 days following discharge from patients living ≤60 miles of any of the institution's hospitals. The exposures were 19 survey items. The outcome was hospital admission within 30 days after third-party receipt of the survey. We evaluated the association of favorable (top-box) vs unfavorable (non-top-box) score for survey items with risk of 30-day hospital admission in models including patient and hospitalization characteristics and reported adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% confidence interval]).

RESULTS

Among 40,162 respondents (mean age ± standard deviation: 68.1 ± 14.0 years), 49.8% were women and 4.3% had 30-day hospital admission. Patients with 30-day hospital admission, compared to those not admitted, were more likely to be discharged from a medical service line (62.9% vs 42.3%; P < 0.001) and have a higher Elixhauser index. Favorable vs unfavorable score for hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the overall cohort (0.88 [0.77-0.99]; P = 0.04), medical service line (0.81 [0.70-0.94]; P = 0.007), and upper tertile of Elixhauser index (0.79 [0.67-0.92]; P = 0.003). Favorable score for recommend hospital was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the medical service line (0.83 [0.71-0.97]; P = 0.02) but for others (e.g. cleanliness of hospital environment) showed no association.

CONCLUSION

In routinely collected patient experience scores, favorable hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission and may inform risk stratification and interventions. Evidence-based survey items linked to patient outcomes may also inform future surveys.

Inpatient clinician workload: a scoping review protocol to understand the definition, measurement and impact of non-procedural clinician workloads

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians that care for hospitalised patients face unprecedented work conditions with exposure to highly infectious disease, exceedingly high patient numbers, and unpredictable work demands, all of which have resulted in increases in stress and burnout. Preliminary studies suggest that increasing workloads negatively affect inpatient clinician well-being and may negatively affect job performance; yet high workloads may be prioritised secondary to financial drivers or from workforce shortages. Despite this, the correlation between workload and these negative outcomes has not been fully quantified. Additionally, there are no clear measures for inpatient clinician workload and no standards to define ideal workloads. Using the protocol described here, we will perform a scoping review of the literature to generate a comprehensive understanding of how clinician workload of medical patients is currently defined, measured in clinical settings and its impact on the workforce, patients and institutional outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the methodology outlined by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley to conduct a comprehensive search of major electronic databases including Ovid Medline (PubMed), Embase (Embase.com), PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Google Scholar. All relevant published peer-reviewed and dissertaion grey literature will be included. Data will be extracted using a standardised form to capture key article information. Results will be presented in a descriptive narrative format.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethics approval though all included studies will be screened to ensure appropriate approval. The synthesis of this literature will provide a better understanding of the current state of work for inpatient clinicians, associated outcomes, and will identify gaps in the literature. These findings will be used in conjunction with an expert Delphi panel to identify measures of inpatient clinician workload to then guide the development of a novel workforce mobile application to actively track clinician work. We aim to lay the groundwork for future workforce studies to understand the optimal workloads that drive key outcomes for clinicians, patients and institutions.

Elements Influencing Recruitment and Retention of Millennial Hospitalists Born in or after 1982: a Survey-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Hospitalist turnover is exceedingly high, placing financial burdens on hospital medicine groups (HMGs). Following training, many begin their employment in medicine as early-career hospitalists, the majority being millennials.

OBJECTIVE

To understand what elements influence millennial hospitalists' recruitment and retention.

DESIGN

We developed a survey that asked participants to rate the level of importance of 18 elements (4-point Likert scale) in their decision to choose or remain at an HMG.

PARTICIPANTS

The survey was electronically distributed to hospitalists born in or after 1982 across 7 HMGs in the USA.

MAIN MEASURES

Elements were grouped into four major categories: culture of practice, work-life balance, financial considerations, and career advancement. We calculated the means for all 18 elements reported as important across the sample. We then calculated means by averaging elements within each category. We used unpaired t-tests to compare differences in means for categories for choosing vs. remaining at an HMG.

KEY RESULTS

One hundred forty-four of 235 hospitalists (61%) responded to the survey. 49.6% were females. Culture of practice category was the most frequently rated as important for choosing (mean 96%, SD 12%) and remaining (mean 96%, SD 13%) at an HMG. The category least frequently rated as important for both choosing (mean 69%, SD 35%) and remaining (mean 76%, SD 32%) at an HMG was career advancement. There were no significant differences between respondent gender, race, or parental status and ratings of elements for choosing or remaining with HMGs.

CONCLUSION

Culture of practice at an HMG may be highly important in influencing millennial hospitalists' decision to choose and stay at an HMG. HMGs can implement strategies to create a millennial-friendly culture which may help improve recruitment and retention.

Second victim experiences and moral injury as predictors of hospitalist burnout before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The increasing number of physicians leaving practice, especially hospitalists, has been well-documented. The most commonly examined factor associated with this exodus has been burnout. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a unique and unprecedented stress on hospitalists who have been at the front lines of patient care. Therefore, the investigation of burnout and its related factors in hospitalists is essential to preventing future physician shortages.

Objective

This study examined the relationship between burnout, second victim, and moral injury experiences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among hospitalists.

Methods

Two anonymous cross-sectional surveys of hospitalists from a community hospital in the metropolitan Washington, DC area were conducted. One was conducted pre-COVID-19 (September-November 2019) and one was conducted during COVID-19 (July-August 2020). The surveys were sent to all full-time hospitalists via an online survey platform. A variety of areas were assessed including demographic (e.g., age, gender), work information (e.g., hours per week, years of experience), burnout, second victim experiences, well-being, and moral injury.

Results

Burnout rates among providers during these two time periods were similar. Second victim experiences remained prevalent in those who experienced burnout both pre and during COVID-19, but interestingly the prevalence increased in those without burnout during COVID-19. Moral injury was predictive of burnout during COVID-19.

Conclusion

While there were some factors that predicted burnout that were similar both pre- and during-pandemic, moral injury was unique to predicting burnout during COVID-19. With burnout as a contributing factor to future physician shortages, it is imperative that predictive factors in a variety of different environments are well understood to prevent future shortages. Hospitalists may be an excellent barometer of these factors given their presence on the front line during the pandemic, and their experiences need to be further explored so that targeted interventions aimed at addressing those factors may be created.

Closer to or Farther away from an Ideal Model of Care? Lessons Learned from Geographic Cohorting

Geographic "cohorting," "co-location," "regionalization," or "localization" refers to the assignation of a hospitalist team to a specific inpatient unit. Its benefits may be related to the formation of a team and the additional interventions like interdisciplinary rounding that the enhanced proximity facilitates. However, cohorting is often adopted in isolation of the bundled approach within which it has proven beneficial. Cohorting may also be associated with unintended consequences such as increased interruptions and increased indirect care time. Institutions may increase patient loads in anticipation of the efficiency gained by cohorting-leading to further increases in interruptions and time away from the bedside. Fragmented attention and increases in indirect care may lead to a perception of increased workload, errors, and burnout. As hospital medicine evolves, there are lessons to be learned by studying cohorting. Institutions and inpatient units should work in synergy to shape the day-to-day work which directly affects patient and clinician outcomes-and ultimately culminates in the success or failure of the parent organization. Such synergy can manifest in workflow design and metric selection. Attention to workloads and adopting the principles of continuous quality improvement are also crucial to developing models of care that deliver excellent care.

Serving on a Graduate Medical Education Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice Committee: Lessons Learned From a Journey of Growth and Healing

Efforts toward achieving diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) within graduate medical education (GME) often begin with the formation of a DEIJ committee that steers the work. Little is known about the experiences and the challenges faced by those serving on such committees. We sought to describe the experiences of members of our institutional GME DEIJ committee to gain knowledge that would propel this work forward. An open-ended survey was electronically administered to members of our institutional GME DEIJ committee. Responses were analyzed using a rapid qualitative analytical approach. Eighteen members (58%) responded. Of these, (67%) were women and five (28%) were Black. Six domains emerged: “motivation,” “challenges,” “emotional response,” “highs,” “facilitators,” and “advice.” Black respondents more often cited the need to increase diversity as a motivator to join this work. Women and Black respondents more often identified time constraints as a challenge to participation. Some members found the work emotionally draining; others described it as uplifting. Two themes emerged as high points of participation-pride and achievement around the work completed and the personal benefits of building a community with a shared purpose. Three themes emerged as facilitators: effective leadership, support, and establishing psychological safety during the meetings. Many arrived at the realization that change would take time and advocated for patience and perseverance. Protected time and DEIJ expertise were identified as integral to successful committee work. Our findings provide novel insights into the experience of serving on a GME DEIJ committee and highlights infrastructural and institutional prerequisites for success.

Psychologic wellness of PA, NP, and physician hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Hospitalists, comprising PAs, NPs, and physicians, manage patients hospitalized with COVID-19. To guide the development of support programs, this study compared the psychologic wellness of hospitalist PAs, NPs, and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We surveyed hospitalists in 16 hospitals at Mayo Clinic, from May 4 to 25, 2020. We used PROMIS surveys for self-reported global well-being (two single-item measures), anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support, before and during the pandemic. Linear and logistic regression models were adjusted for personal and professional factors.

RESULTS

The response rate was 52.2% (N = 154/295). In adjusted linear regression models, the change in scores (before minus during pandemic) for anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support was similar for PAs and NPs compared with physicians. In adjusted logistic regression models, physicians, compared with PAs and NPs, had a higher odds of top global well-being for mental health (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.82 [1.12, 7.13]; P = .03) and top global well-being for social activities and relationships (adjusted odds ratio 4.08 [1.38, 12.08]; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, global well-being was lower for PAs and NPs compared with physician hospitalists. These results can guide support programs for hospitalists.

Healthcare Worker Mental Health After the Initial Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic: a US Medical Center Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the mental health impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on United States (US) healthcare workers (HCWs) after the first surge in the spring of 2020.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of the pandemic on HCWs, and the relationship between HCW mental health and demographics, occupational factors, and COVID-19 concerns.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey in an urban medical center (September-November 2020) in Baltimore, MD, in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 605 HCWs (physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, physician assistants, patient care technicians, respiratory therapists, social workers, mental health therapists, and case managers).

MAIN MEASURES

Measures of mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, PROMIS Sleep Disturbance 4a, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Maslach Burnout Inventory-2 item, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 item), demographics, occupational factors, and COVID-19 related concerns.

KEY RESULTS

Fifty-two percent of 1198 HCWs responded to the survey and 14.2% reported depression, 43.1% mild or higher anxiety, 31.6% sleep disturbance, 22.3% posttraumatic stress symptoms, 21.6% depersonalization, 46.0% emotional exhaustion, and 23.1% lower resilience. Relative to HCWs providing in-person care to COVID-19 infected patients none of their working days, those doing so all or most days were more likely to experience worse depression (adjusted odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.7), anxiety (aOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.3), possible PTSD symptoms (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-5.8), and higher burnout (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.0). Worse mental health in several domains was associated with higher health fear (aORs ranged from 2.2 to 5.0), job stressors (aORs ranged from 1.9 to 4.0), perceived social stigma/avoidance (aORs ranged from 1.8 to 2.9), and workplace safety concerns (aORs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

US HCWs experienced significant mental health symptoms eight months into the pandemic. More time spent providing in-person care to COVID-19-infected patients and greater COVID-19-related concerns were consistently associated with worse mental health.

The effect of geographic rounding on hospitalist work experience: A mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the structure and implementation of a model in which hospitalists focus on a particular hospital unit or area, referred to as "geographic rounding," and to analyze its effect on hospitalist efficiency, interruptions, after-hours work, and satisfaction.

METHODS

The leadership of our academic hospital medicine group designed a geographic rounding intervention with the goal of improving provider satisfaction and mitigating burnout. Our quantitative analysis compared the pre-intervention and post-intervention time periods with regard to progress note completion time, after-hours progress note completion, secure messaging communication volume, and Mini-Z survey results. A post-intervention qualitative analysis was performed to further explore the relationship between geographic rounding and the drivers of burnout.

RESULTS

Following the intervention, 97% of geographic rounders were localized to one or two geographic areas and 77% were localized to a single geographic area. Following the implementation of geographic rounding, progress notes were completed an average of 29 minutes earlier (p<0.001). The proportion of progress notes completed after-hours decreased from 25.1% to 20% (p<0.001). The volume of secure messages received by hospitalists decreased from 1.95 to 1.8 per patient per day (p<0.001). The proportion of hospitalists reporting no burnout increased from 77.8% to 93% after implementing geographic rounding, a change that did not reach statistical significance (p=0.1). Qualitative analysis revealed mixed effects on work environment but improvements in efficiency, patient-centeredness, communication with nurses, and job satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Geographic rounding represents an organization-level change that has the potential to improve hospitalist career satisfaction.

Hospitalist perspectives on barriers to recommend and potential benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine

Background: Hospitalists, comprised of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (collectively, advanced practice providers [APPs]) and physicians, have opportunities to counsel patients and reduce SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy. However, hospitalist perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and potential differences between APPs and physicians are unknown. Understanding hospitalist perspectives could help to address vaccine hesitancy among patients.Methods: We conducted an online survey of hospitalists at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from 14 December 2020 through 4 January 2021. We collected demographic information and assessed perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and, for comparison, on the influenza vaccine. Descriptive statistics were used to compare responses between APPs and physicians.Results: The overall response rate was 42.7% (n = 128/300) and comprised of 53.9% women (n = 69/128) and 41.4% APPs (n = 53/128). Most hospitalists reported receiving or planning to receive vaccination against COVID-19 (93.7%; n = 119/128) and influenza (97.7%; n = 125/128). Most hospitalists reported they would advise 100% of patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (66% for APPs; 74.7% for physicians) and influenza vaccine (83% for APPs; 80% for physicians). Barriers to recommending the COVID-19 vaccine included patient health status and vaccine safety profile. Hospitalists reported that patients and coworkers receiving the COVID-19 vaccine would reduce their anxiety (~80% of hospitalists), social isolation (~64% of hospitalists), and improve their emotional support (~40% of hospitalists). APP and physician responses were similar. The possible reduction in social isolation was associated with higher odds of hospitalists advising all patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (adjusted odds ratio 2.95 [95% confidence interval, 1.32-6.59]; P< .008), whereas hospitalist age, gender, and profession showed no association.Conclusion: Most hospitalists would reportedly advise patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Barriers to this recommendation included patient health status and vaccine safety. Hospitalists are an important resource to provide patient education and reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.