Christian D Helfrich1,2, Joseph A Simonetti3,4, Walter L Clinton5, Gordon B Wood5, Leslie Taylor5, Gordon Schectman6, Richard Stark7, Lisa V Rubenstein8,9,10, Stephan D Fihn3,4,5, Karin M Nelson3,4,5. 1. Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care VA Puget Sound Puget Sound Health Care System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, WA, USA. christian.helfrich@va.gov. 2. Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA. christian.helfrich@va.gov. 3. Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care VA Puget Sound Puget Sound Health Care System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. VA Office of Patient Care Services, Washington, DC, USA. 7. VA Office of Clinical Operations, Washington, DC, USA. 8. Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, & Policy, Greater Los Angeles VA, Sepulveda, CA, USA. 9. UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-related burnout is common in primary care and is associated with worse patient safety, patient satisfaction, and employee mental health. Workload, staffing stability, and team completeness may be drivers of burnout. However, few studies have assessed these associations at the team level, and fewer still include members of the team beyond physicians. OBJECTIVE: To study the associations of burnout among primary care providers (PCPs), nurse care managers, clinical associates (MAs, LPNs), and administrative clerks with the staffing and workload on their teams. DESIGN: We conducted an individual-level cross-sectional analysis of survey and administrative data in 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care personnel at VA clinics responding to a national survey. MAIN MEASURES: Burnout was measured with a validated single-item survey measure dichotomized to indicate the presence of burnout. The independent variables were survey measures of team staffing (having a fully staffed team, serving on multiple teams, and turnover on the team), and workload both from survey items (working extended hours), and administrative data (patient panel overcapacity and average panel comorbidity). KEY RESULTS: There were 4610 respondents (estimated response rate of 20.9%). The overall prevalence of burnout was 41%. In adjusted analyses, the strongest associations with burnout were having a fully staffed team (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 95% CI 0.47-0.65), having turnover on the team (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.43-1.94), and having patient panel overcapacity (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40). The observed burnout prevalence was 30.1% lower (28.5% vs. 58.6%) for respondents working on fully staffed teams with no turnover and caring for a panel within capacity, relative to respondents in the inverse condition. CONCLUSIONS: Complete team staffing, turnover among team members, and panel overcapacity had strong, cumulative associations with burnout. Further research is needed to understand whether improvements in these factors would lower burnout.
BACKGROUND: Work-related burnout is common in primary care and is associated with worse patient safety, patient satisfaction, and employee mental health. Workload, staffing stability, and team completeness may be drivers of burnout. However, few studies have assessed these associations at the team level, and fewer still include members of the team beyond physicians. OBJECTIVE: To study the associations of burnout among primary care providers (PCPs), nurse care managers, clinical associates (MAs, LPNs), and administrative clerks with the staffing and workload on their teams. DESIGN: We conducted an individual-level cross-sectional analysis of survey and administrative data in 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care personnel at VA clinics responding to a national survey. MAIN MEASURES: Burnout was measured with a validated single-item survey measure dichotomized to indicate the presence of burnout. The independent variables were survey measures of team staffing (having a fully staffed team, serving on multiple teams, and turnover on the team), and workload both from survey items (working extended hours), and administrative data (patient panel overcapacity and average panel comorbidity). KEY RESULTS: There were 4610 respondents (estimated response rate of 20.9%). The overall prevalence of burnout was 41%. In adjusted analyses, the strongest associations with burnout were having a fully staffed team (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 95% CI 0.47-0.65), having turnover on the team (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.43-1.94), and having patient panel overcapacity (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40). The observed burnout prevalence was 30.1% lower (28.5% vs. 58.6%) for respondents working on fully staffed teams with no turnover and caring for a panel within capacity, relative to respondents in the inverse condition. CONCLUSIONS: Complete team staffing, turnover among team members, and panel overcapacity had strong, cumulative associations with burnout. Further research is needed to understand whether improvements in these factors would lower burnout.
Entities:
Keywords:
burnout; patient-centered medical home; primary care staffing; primary care workload; team-based care
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Omar Hasan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Michelle Mungo; Jaime Schmitgen; Kristin A Storz; David Reeves; Sharonne N Hayes; Jeff A Sloan; Stephen J Swensen; Steven J Buskirk Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: M Linzer; T R Konrad; J Douglas; J E McMurray; D E Pathman; E S Williams; M D Schwartz; M Gerrity; W Scheckler; J A Bigby; E Rhodes Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mark Linzer; Linda Baier Manwell; Eric S Williams; James A Bobula; Roger L Brown; Anita B Varkey; Bernice Man; Julia E McMurray; Ann Maguire; Barbara Horner-Ibler; Mark D Schwartz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dragan Mijakoski; Jovanka Karadzinska-Bislimovska; Vera Basarovska; Anthony Montgomery; Efharis Panagopoulou; Sasho Stoleski; Jordan Minov Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci Date: 2015-08-12
Authors: Linnaea Schuttner; Eric Gunnink; Philip Sylling; Leslie Taylor; Stephan D Fihn; Karin Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Eric A Apaydin; Danielle Rose; Lisa S Meredith; Michael McClean; Timothy Dresselhaus; Susan Stockdale Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anita D Misra-Hebert; Adam Perzynski; Michael B Rothberg; Jaqueline Fox; Mary Beth Mercer; Xiaobo Liu; Bo Hu; David C Aron; Kurt C Stange Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sukyung Chung; Ellis C Dillon; Amy E Meehan; Robert Nordgren; Dominick L Frosch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ellis C Dillon; Ming Tai-Seale; Amy Meehan; Veronique Martin; Robert Nordgren; Tim Lee; Teresa Nauenberg; Dominick L Frosch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 5.128