Alison Cuellar1, Alex H Krist2, Len M Nichols3, Anton J Kuzel2. 1. Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Washington, DC aevanscu@gmu.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Washington, DC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physicians have joined larger groups and hospital systems in the face of multiple environmental challenges. We examine whether there are differences across practice ownership in self-reported work environment, a practice culture of learning, psychological safety, and burnout. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from staff surveys of small and medium-size practices that participated in EvidenceNOW in Virginia, we tested for differences in work environment, culture of learning, psychological safety, and burnout by practice type. We conducted weighted multivariate linear regression of outcomes on ownership, controlling for practice size, specialty mix, payer mix, and whether the practice was located in a medically underserved area. We further analyzed clinician and staff responses separately. RESULTS: Participating were 104 hospital-owned and 61 independent practices and 24 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We analyzed 2,005 responses from practice clinicians and staff, a response rate of 49%. Working in a hospital-owned practice was associated with favorable ratings of work environment, psychological safety, and burnout compared with independent practices. When we examined separately the responses of clinicians vs staff, however, the association appears to be largely driven by staff. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ownership was associated with positive perceptions of practice work environment and lower burnout for staff relative to independent ownership, whereas clinicians in FQHCs perceive a more negative, less joyful work environment and burnout. Our findings are suggestive that clinician and nonclinician staff perceive practice adaptive reserve differently, which may have implications for creating the energy for ongoing quality improvement work.
PURPOSE: Physicians have joined larger groups and hospital systems in the face of multiple environmental challenges. We examine whether there are differences across practice ownership in self-reported work environment, a practice culture of learning, psychological safety, and burnout. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from staff surveys of small and medium-size practices that participated in EvidenceNOW in Virginia, we tested for differences in work environment, culture of learning, psychological safety, and burnout by practice type. We conducted weighted multivariate linear regression of outcomes on ownership, controlling for practice size, specialty mix, payer mix, and whether the practice was located in a medically underserved area. We further analyzed clinician and staff responses separately. RESULTS: Participating were 104 hospital-owned and 61 independent practices and 24 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We analyzed 2,005 responses from practice clinicians and staff, a response rate of 49%. Working in a hospital-owned practice was associated with favorable ratings of work environment, psychological safety, and burnout compared with independent practices. When we examined separately the responses of clinicians vs staff, however, the association appears to be largely driven by staff. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ownership was associated with positive perceptions of practice work environment and lower burnout for staff relative to independent ownership, whereas clinicians in FQHCs perceive a more negative, less joyful work environment and burnout. Our findings are suggestive that clinician and nonclinician staff perceive practice adaptive reserve differently, which may have implications for creating the energy for ongoing quality improvement work.
Authors: William L Miller; Benjamin F Crabtree; Paul A Nutting; Kurt C Stange; Carlos Roberto Jaén Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Paul A Nutting; Benjamin F Crabtree; William L Miller; Elizabeth E Stewart; Kurt C Stange; Carlos Roberto Jaén Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Colin P West; Jeff A Sloan; Paul J Novotny; Greg A Poland; Ron Menaker; Teresa A Rummans; Lotte N Dyrbye Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-05-25
Authors: Brian A Primack; Terri C Dilmore; Galen E Switzer; Cindy L Bryce; Deborah L Seltzer; Jie Li; Douglas P Landsittel; Wishwa N Kapoor; Doris M Rubio Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Tara F Bishop; Stephen M Shortell; Patricia P Ramsay; Kennon R Copeland; Lawrence P Casalino Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Leif I Solberg; Stephen E Asche; Stephen M Shortell; Robin R Gillies; Nancy Taylor; L Gregory Pawlson; Sarah Hudson Scholle; M Rashell Young Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Christine Sinsky; Lacey Colligan; Ling Li; Mirela Prgomet; Sam Reynolds; Lindsey Goeders; Johanna Westbrook; Michael Tutty; George Blike Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephan Lindner; Leif I Solberg; William L Miller; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Miguel Marino; K John McConnell; Samuel T Edwards; Kurt C Stange; Rachel J Springer; Deborah J Cohen Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2019 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Debora Goetz Goldberg; Tulay G Soylu; Panagiota Kitsantas; Victoria M Grady; Kurt Elward; Len M Nichols Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Victoria M Grady; Tulay G Soylu; Debora G Goldberg; Panagiota Kitsantas; James D Grady Journal: Inquiry Date: 2021 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: Samuel T Edwards; Miguel Marino; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Leif I Solberg; Steele Valenzuela; Rachel Springer; Kurt C Stange; William L Miller; Thomas E Kottke; Cynthia K Perry; Sarah Ono; Deborah J Cohen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.473