Background

Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare.

Objective

To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure.

Design

Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017).

Participants

Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems.

Main measures

The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009).

Key results

Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity.

Conclusions

Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare. OBJECTIVE: To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009). KEY RESULTS: Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported definitely burning out or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measures sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

Continuity of care is a challenge in primary care residency teaching clinics. Resident physicians have competing inpatient and outpatient responsibilities and often spend only 1 to 2 half-days per week in the clinic. Their clinic schedules are often pieced together after the needs of inpatient and specialty rotations are met. Similarly, faculty clinicians often balance limited clinic time with teaching, research, or administrative responsibilities. Seeking approaches to improve continuity of care, we visited 23 internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatric residency clinics across the US. This article highlights strategies to optimize continuity of care pioneered by 3 "bright spot" residency teaching clinics with high-continuity performance. The strategies include adopting a strong continuity culture and patient scheduling algorithms that prioritize continuity, appointing a team continuity anchor, and/or reorganizing resident and faculty schedules to maximize continuity. We hope that these perspectives can assist residency teaching practices to improve continuity of care for their patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how a preexisting initiative to align health care, public health, and social services influenced COVID-19 pandemic response. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: In-depth interviews with administrators and frontline staff in health care, public health, and social services in Contra Costa County, California from October, 2020, to May, 2021. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews examined how COVID-19 response used resources developed for system alignment prior to the pandemic. DATA COLLECTION: We interviewed 31 informants including 14 managers in public health, health care, or social services and 17 social needs case managers who coordinated services across these sectors on behalf of patients. An inductive-deductive qualitative coding approach was used to systematically identify recurrent themes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified four distinct components of the countys system alignment capabilities that supported COVID-19 response, including (1) an organizational culture of adaptability fostered through earlier system alignment efforts, which included the ability and willingness to rapidly implement new organizational processes, (2) trusting relationships among organizations based on prior, positive experiences of cross-sector collaboration, (3) capacity to monitor population health of historically marginalized community members, including information infrastructures, data analytics, and population monitoring and outreach, and (4) frontline staff with flexible skills to support health and social care who had built relationships with the highest risk community members. CONCLUSIONS: Prior investments in aligning systems provided unanticipated benefits for organizational and community resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results illustrate a pathway for investment in system alignment efforts that build capacity within organizations and relationships between organizations to enhance resilience to crisis. Our findings suggest the usefulness of an integrated concept of organizational and community resilience that understands the resilience of systems of care as a vital resource for community resilience during crisis.

Purpose

Primary care clinicians disproportionately report symptoms of burnout, threatening workforce sustainability and quality of care. Recent surveys report that these symptoms are greater when clinicians perceive fewer clinic resources to address patients' social needs. We undertook this study to better understand the relationship between burnout and clinic capacity to address social needs.

Methods

We completed semistructured, in-person interviews and brief surveys with 29 primary care clinicians serving low-income populations. Interview and survey topics included burnout and clinic capacity to address social needs. We analyzed interviews using a modified grounded theory approach to qualitative research and used survey responses to contextualize our qualitative findings.

Results

Four key themes emerged from the interview analyses: (1) burnout can affect how clinicians evaluate their clinic's resources to address social needs, with clinicians reporting high emotional exhaustion perceiving low efficacy even in when such resources are available; (2) unmet social needs affect practice by influencing clinic flow, treatment planning, and clinician emotional wellness; (3) social services embedded in primary care clinics buffer against burnout by increasing efficiency, restoring clinicians' medical roles, and improving morale; and (4) clinicians view clinic-level interventions to address patients' social needs as a necessary but insufficient strategy to address burnout.

Conclusions

Primary care clinicians described multiple pathways whereby increased clinic capacity to address patients' social needs mitigates burnout symptoms. These findings may inform burnout prevention strategies that strengthen the capacity to address patients' social needs in primary care clinical settings.

Patient engagement in primary care leadership is an important means to involve community voices at community health centers. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to have patient representation within their governing boards, while practices seeking patient-centered medical home certification receive credit for implementing patient advisory councils (PACs). Our objective was to compare and contrast how community health centers engage patients in clinic management, decision-making and planning within governing boards versus PACs. Qualitative study conducted from August 2016 to June 2017 at community health centers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. We interviewed practice leaders of patient engagement programs at their site. Eligible clinics had patient representatives within their governing board, PAC, or both. We assessed patient demographics, roles and responsibilities of patients participating, and extent of involvement in quality improvement among governing boards versus PACs. We interviewed 19 sites, of which 17 were FQHCs that had governing boards. Of the 17 FQHCs, 11 had also implemented PACs. Two non-FQHC safety-net sites had PACs but did not have governing boards. Governing board members had formal, structured membership responsibilities such as finances and hiring personnel. PAC roles were more flexible, focusing on day-to-day clinic operations. Clinics tended to recruit governing board patient members for their skill set and professional experience; PAC member recruitment focused more on demographic representation of the clinic's patient population. Both groups worked on quality improvement, but governing boards tended to review clinic performance metrics, while PAC members were involved in specific project planning and implementation to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Patient involvement in clinic improvement in CHCs includes higher-level decision-making and governance through mechanisms such as governing boards, as well as engagement in day-to-day practice improvement through PACs. These roles offer differing, but valuable insights to clinic programs and policies.

Objective

Health systems are expanding efforts to address health and social risks, although the heterogeneity of early evidence indicates need for more nuanced exploration of how such programs work and how to holistically assess program success. This qualitative study aims to identify characteristics of success in a large-scale, health and social needs case management program from the perspective of interdisciplinary case managers.

Setting

Case management program for high-risk, complex patients run by an integrated, county-based public health system.

Participants

30 out of 70 case managers, purposively sampled to represent their interdisciplinary health and social work backgrounds. Interviews took place in March-November 2019.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The analysis intended to identify characteristics of success working with patients.

Results

Case managers described three characteristics of success working with patients: (1) establishing trust; (2) observing change in patients' mindset or initiative and (3) promoting stability and independence. Cross-cutting these characteristics, case managers emphasised the importance of patients defining their own success, often demonstrated through individualised, incremental progress. Thus, moments of success commonly contrasted with external perceptions and operational or productivity metrics.

Conclusions

Themes emphasise the importance of compassion for complexity in patients' lives, and success as a step-by-step process that is built over longitudinal relationships.

Purpose

Levels of burnout among primary care clinicians and staff are alarmingly high, and there is widespread belief that burnout and lack of employee engagement contribute to high turnover of the workforce. Scant research evidence exists to support this assertion, however.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal cohort study using survey data on burnout and employee engagement collected in 2013 and 2014 from 740 primary care clinicians and staff in 2 San Francisco health systems, matched to employment roster data from 2016.

Results

Prevalence of burnout, low engagement, and turnover were high, with 53% of both clinicians and staff reporting burnout, only 32% of clinicians and 35% of staff reporting high engagement, and 30% of clinicians and 41% of staff no longer working in primary care in the same system 2 to 3 years later. Burnout predicted clinician turnover (adjusted odds ratio = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.40); there was also a strong trend whereby low engagement predicted clinician turnover (adjusted odds ratio with high engagement = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33-1.04). Neither measure significantly predicted turnover for staff.

Conclusions

High rates of burnout and turnover in primary care are compelling problems. Our findings provide evidence that burnout contributes to turnover among primary care clinicians, but not among staff. Although reducing clinician burnout may help to decrease rates of turnover, health care organizations and policymakers concerned about employee turnover in primary care need to understand the multifactorial causes of turnover to develop effective retention strategies for clinicians and staff.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that reference no. 4 be changed. The details of the correction are as follows.