BACKGROUND: Burnout among graduate medical education (GME) faculty is a well-documented phenomenon, but few studies have explored the relationship between faculty time allocation and burnout. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to (1) characterize time allocation of academic family physicians, (2) measure the difference between actual versus preferred time spent on various tasks, and (3) examine this difference in relation to burnout. METHODS: From January to March 2017, family medicine GME faculty across Texas completed anonymous online surveys for burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory) and occupational stress (Primary Care Provider Stress Checklist). They also reported the percentage of time they actually versus prefer to allocate across 5 categories of tasks: direct patient care, nondirect clinical duties, teaching, administration, and research. Difference scores between actual and preferred time allocation were calculated and correlated with burnout and stress scores. RESULTS: Of the faculty physicians surveyed, 53% provided complete responses (103 of 195). On average they engaged in their preferred amount of time on direct patient care (30% of their time) and administrative duties (15%). Meanwhile, faculty preferred to increase time spent teaching (37% to 41%, P = .002) and conducting research (4% to 7%, P ≤ .001), while reducing time spent on nondirect clinical duties (14% to 7%, P < .001). Those with higher misalignment in their weekly schedules reported higher levels of professional burnout and occupational stress. CONCLUSIONS: Many family medicine GME faculty spent 20% or more of their time in a manner incongruent with their preferences, which may place them at higher risk for burnout and occupational stress.
BACKGROUND: Burnout among graduate medical education (GME) faculty is a well-documented phenomenon, but few studies have explored the relationship between faculty time allocation and burnout. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to (1) characterize time allocation of academic family physicians, (2) measure the difference between actual versus preferred time spent on various tasks, and (3) examine this difference in relation to burnout. METHODS: From January to March 2017, family medicine GME faculty across Texas completed anonymous online surveys for burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory) and occupational stress (Primary Care Provider Stress Checklist). They also reported the percentage of time they actually versus prefer to allocate across 5 categories of tasks: direct patient care, nondirect clinical duties, teaching, administration, and research. Difference scores between actual and preferred time allocation were calculated and correlated with burnout and stress scores. RESULTS: Of the faculty physicians surveyed, 53% provided complete responses (103 of 195). On average they engaged in their preferred amount of time on direct patient care (30% of their time) and administrative duties (15%). Meanwhile, faculty preferred to increase time spent teaching (37% to 41%, P = .002) and conducting research (4% to 7%, P ≤ .001), while reducing time spent on nondirect clinical duties (14% to 7%, P < .001). Those with higher misalignment in their weekly schedules reported higher levels of professional burnout and occupational stress. CONCLUSIONS: Many family medicine GME faculty spent 20% or more of their time in a manner incongruent with their preferences, which may place them at higher risk for burnout and occupational stress.
Authors: Waguih William Ishak; Sara Lederer; Carla Mandili; Rose Nikravesh; Laurie Seligman; Monisha Vasa; Dotun Ogunyemi; Carol A Bernstein Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2009-12
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: Lisa S Rotenstein; Matthew Torre; Marco A Ramos; Rachael C Rosales; Constance Guille; Srijan Sen; Douglas A Mata Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Colin P West; Liselotte N Dyrbye; Daniel V Satele; Jeff A Sloan; Tait D Shanafelt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Sonja Boone; Litjen Tan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Wayne Sotile; Daniel Satele; Colin P West; Jeff Sloan; Michael R Oreskovich Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-10-08
Authors: Liselotte N Dyrbye; Colin P West; Daniel Satele; Sonja Boone; Litjen Tan; Jeff Sloan; Tait D Shanafelt Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Darshana T Shah; Valerie N Williams; Luanne E Thorndyke; E Eugene Marsh; Roberta E Sonnino; Steven M Block; Thomas R Viggiano Journal: Acad Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.893