OBJECTIVES: Involvement in adverse events can negatively impact physician well-being. Because burnout is increasingly recognized as a threat to patient safety, we examined the relationship between physician adverse event involvement and burnout as well as facilitators and barriers to support among physicians experiencing burnout. METHODS: We surveyed physicians in the United States who are members of the networking platform, Doximity. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses investigating experiences with adverse events, the impact of adverse events, the type of support the physician sought and received after the event, and burnout. RESULTS: Across specialties, involvement in an adverse event and burnout was common. Most respondents involved in an adverse event experienced emotional impact, but only a minority received support. Those reporting that the error resulted in emotional impact were more likely to experience burnout (adjusted odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.07); this association was mitigated by the most common form of support sought, peer support (adjusted odds ratio for burnout among those who received peer support versus those who did not, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.82). Barriers to support after an adverse event include punitive culture and systems factors such as administrative bureaucracy. Facilitators that emerged include peer, professional, and spiritual support, mentorship, helping others, the learning environment, and improved/flexible working hours. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who experienced emotional repercussions from adverse events were more likely to report burnout compared with those who did not. Respondents proposed barriers and facilitators to support that have not been widely implemented. Peer support may help mitigate physician burnout related to adverse events.
OBJECTIVES: Involvement in adverse events can negatively impact physician well-being. Because burnout is increasingly recognized as a threat to patient safety, we examined the relationship between physician adverse event involvement and burnout as well as facilitators and barriers to support among physicians experiencing burnout. METHODS: We surveyed physicians in the United States who are members of the networking platform, Doximity. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses investigating experiences with adverse events, the impact of adverse events, the type of support the physician sought and received after the event, and burnout. RESULTS: Across specialties, involvement in an adverse event and burnout was common. Most respondents involved in an adverse event experienced emotional impact, but only a minority received support. Those reporting that the error resulted in emotional impact were more likely to experience burnout (adjusted odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.07); this association was mitigated by the most common form of support sought, peer support (adjusted odds ratio for burnout among those who received peer support versus those who did not, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.82). Barriers to support after an adverse event include punitive culture and systems factors such as administrative bureaucracy. Facilitators that emerged include peer, professional, and spiritual support, mentorship, helping others, the learning environment, and improved/flexible working hours. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who experienced emotional repercussions from adverse events were more likely to report burnout compared with those who did not. Respondents proposed barriers and facilitators to support that have not been widely implemented. Peer support may help mitigate physician burnout related to adverse events.
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: Amy D Waterman; Jane Garbutt; Erik Hazel; William Claiborne Dunagan; Wendy Levinson; Victoria J Fraser; Thomas H Gallagher Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2007-08
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: Kiran Gupta; Sarah Lisker; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Christina Mangurian; Eleni Linos; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Mark Linzer; Sara Poplau; Stewart Babbott; Tracie Collins; Laura Guzman-Corrales; Jeremiah Menk; Mary Lou Murphy; Kay Ovington Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 5.128