Explore the vast range of titles available.

There have been no studies to date of moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in national samples of U.S. health workers. The purpose of this study was to determine, in a national sample of internal medicine physicians (internists) in the U.S.: 1) the intensity of moral distress; 2) the predictors of moral distress; 3) the outcomes of moral distress. We conducted a national survey with an online panel of internists, representative of the membership of the American College of Physicians, the largest specialty organization of physicians in the United States, between September 21 and October 8, 2020. Moral distress was measured with the Moral Distress Thermometer, a one-item scale with a range of 0 (\"none\") to 10 (\"worst possible\"). Outcomes were measured with short screening scales. The response rate was 37.8% (N = 810). Moral distress intensity was low (mean score = 2.4, 95% CI, 2.2-2.6); however, 13.3% (95% CI, 12.1% - 14.5%) had a moral distress score greater than or equal to 6 (\"distressing\"). In multiple linear regression models, perceived risk of death if infected with COVID-19 was the strongest predictor of higher moral distress (β (standardized regression coefficient) = 0.26, p < .001), and higher perceived organizational support (respondent belief that their health organization valued them) was most strongly associated with lower moral distress (β = -0.22, p < .001). Controlling for other factors, high levels of moral distress, but not low levels, were strongly associated (adjusted odds ratios 3.0 to 11.5) with screening positive for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, burnout, and intention to leave patient care. The intensity of moral distress among U.S. internists was low overall. However, the 13% with high levels of moral distress had very high odds of adverse mental health outcomes. Organizational support may lower moral distress and thereby prevent adverse mental health outcomes.

Background A shortage of behavioral health clinicians impedes access to mental health services nationwide in the U.S., with shortages most acute in federally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas (mHPSAs). Retaining behavioral health clinicians currently working in mHPSAs is thus critical. This study sought to identify behavioral health clinicians’ assessments of various aspects of their work and jobs that are associated with their anticipated retention within mHPSA practices. Methods Data for this cross-sectional study were drawn from an annual feedback survey of clinicians when they complete federal education loan repayment support contracts for their work within mHPSAs, from 2016 to 2023. Clinicians’ assessments of various aspects of their work and jobs were measured with validated survey items with Likert-scaled response options, with most combined into scales for analyses. Bivariate and then adjusted associations with 5-year anticipated retention were assessed for clinicians’ assessments of various aspects of their work and jobs controlling for demographic, professional, and community characteristics. Results The 2,587 respondent behavioral health clinicians (67.5% response rate) included 42% licensed clinical social workers, 39% licensed professional counselors, 12% psychologists, and 7% licensed marriage and family therapists. Two-thirds of these clinicians worked in either community mental health centers or federally qualified health centers. 42% anticipated they would remain in their practices at least another five years. Five-year anticipated retention rates were nearly three times higher for clinicians who indicated satisfaction on global work and practice assessment measures than for clinicians neutral or dissatisfied on these measures. Five-year anticipated retention rates were also higher for clinicians who reported they had an effective and supportive administration, felt well and fairly compensated, had jobs that permitted a good work-life balance, and had jobs that allowed them to practice the full range of services they desired. Conclusions How behavioral health clinicians view their jobs within U.S. mHPSAs is important to their anticipated retention. Based on study findings, to promote their retention practice administrators should provide fair and adequate compensation, foster work-life balance, permit them to deliver the services they wish to provide, and value them and their input and maintain good relationships with them.

ObjectiveTo explore the causes and levels of moral distress experienced by clinicians caring for the low-income patients of safety net practices in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional survey in late 2020, employing quantitative and qualitative analyses.SettingSafety net practices in 20 US states.Participants2073 survey respondents (45.8% response rate) in primary care, dental and behavioural health disciplines working in safety net practices and participating in state and national education loan repayment programmes.MeasuresOrdinally scaled degree of moral distress experienced during the pandemic, and open-ended response descriptions of issues that caused most moral distress.ResultsWeighted to reflect all surveyed clinicians, 28.4% reported no moral distress related to work during the pandemic, 44.8% reported ‘mild’ or ‘uncomfortable’ levels and 26.8% characterised their moral distress as ‘distressing’, ‘intense’ or ‘worst possible’. The most frequently described types of morally distressing issues encountered were patients not being able to receive the best or needed care, and patients and staff risking infection in the office. Abuse of clinic staff, suffering of patients, suffering of staff and inequities for patients were also morally distressing, as were politics, inequities and injustices within the community. Clinicians who reported instances of inequities for patients and communities and the abuse of staff were more likely to report higher levels of moral distress.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic’s first 9 months, moral distress was common among these clinicians working in US safety net practices. But for only one-quarter was this significantly distressing. As reported for hospital-based clinicians during the pandemic, this study’s clinicians in safety net practices were often morally distressed by being unable to provide optimal care to patients. New to the literature is clinicians’ moral distress from witnessing inequities and other injustices for their patients and communities.

Background Global health interest has grown among medical students over the past 20 years, and most medical schools offer global health opportunities. Studies suggest that completing global health electives during medical school may increase the likelihood of working with underserved populations in a clinical or research capacity. This study aimed to assess the association of global electives in medical school on subsequently working in global health and with underserved populations in the United States (U.S.), additionally considering students’ interests and experiences prior to medical school. We also examined whether respondents perceived benefits gained from global electives. Methods We surveyed medical school graduates (classes of 2011-2015) from a large public medical school in the U.S. to describe current practice settings and previous global health experience. We evaluated work, volunteer, and educational experiences preceding medical school, socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity using American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) data. We assessed the association between students’ backgrounds, completing global health electives in medical school and current work in global health or with underserved populations in the U.S. Results In the 5 to 8 years post-graduation, 78% of 161 respondents reported work, research, or teaching with a focus on global or underserved U.S. populations. Completing a global health elective during medical school ( p  = 0.0002) or during residency ( p  = 0.06) were positively associated with currently working with underserved populations in the U.S. and pre-medical school experiences were marginally associated ( p  = 0.1). Adjusting for pre-medical school experiences, completing a global health elective during medical school was associated with a 22% greater prevalence of working with an underserved population. Perceived benefits from global electives included improved cultural awareness, language skills, public health and research skills, and ability to practice in technology-limited settings. Conclusion Medical school graduates who participated in global electives as students were more likely than their peers to pursue careers with underserved populations, independent of experiences prior to medical school. We hypothesize that by offering global health experiences, medical schools can enhance the interests and skills of graduates that will make them more likely and better prepared to work with underserved populations in the U.S. and abroad.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between HMO practice, time pressure, and physician job satisfaction. DESIGN: National random stratified sample of 5,704 primary care and specialty physicians in the United States. Surveys contained 150 items reflecting 10 facets (components) of satisfaction in addition to global satisfaction with current job, one's career and one's specialty. Linear regression–modeled satisfaction (on 1–5 scale) as a function of specialty, practice setting (solo, small group, large group, academic, or HMO), gender, ethnicity, full‐time versus part‐time status, and time pressure during office visits. “HMO physicians” (9% of total) were those in group or staff model HMOs with> 50% of patients capitated or in managed care. RESULTS: Of the 2,326 respondents, 735 (32%) were female, 607 (26%) were minority (adjusted response rate 52%). HMO physicians reported significantly higher satisfaction with autonomy and administrative issues when compared with other practice types (moderate to large effect sizes). However, physicians in many other practice settings averaged higher satisfaction than HMO physicians with resources and relationships with staff and community (small to moderate effect sizes). Small and large group practice and academic physicians had higher global job satisfaction scores than HMO physicians (P < .05), and private practice physicians had quarter to half the odds of HMO physicians of intending to leave their current practice within 2 years (P < .05). Time pressure detracted from satisfaction in 7 of 10 satisfaction facets (P < .05) and from job, career, and specialty satisfaction (P < .01). Time allotted for new patients in HMOs (31 min) was less than that allotted in solo (39 min) and academic practices (44 min), while 83% of family physicians in HMOs felt they needed more time than allotted for new patients versus 54% of family physicians in small group practices (P < .05 after Bonferroni's correction). CONCLUSIONS: HMO physicians are generally less satisfied with their jobs and more likely to intend to leave their practices than physicians in many other practice settings. Our data suggest that HMO physicians' satisfaction with staff, community, resources, and the duration of new patient visits should be assessed and optimized. Whether providing more time for patient encounters would improve job satisfaction in HMOs or other practice settings remains to be determined.

Context: Many states attempt to entice young generalist physicians into rural and medically underserved areas with financial supportfor-service programs-scholarships, service-option loans, loan repayment, direct financial incentives, and resident support programs-with little documentation of their effectiveness. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of states' support-for-service programs as a group and to compare outcomes of the 5 program types. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional, primarily descriptive study. Participants: We studied all 69 state programs operating in 1996 that provided financial support to medical students, residents, and practicing physicians in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas; federally funded initiatives were excluded. We also surveyed 434 generalist physicians who served in 29 of these state programs and a matched comparison group of 723 nonobligated young generalist physicians. Data Collection: Information on eligible programs was collected by telephone, mail questionnaires, and from secondary sources. Obligated and nonobli physicians were surveyed, with 80.3% and 72.8% response rates, respectively. Main Outcome Measures: Levels of socioeconomic need of communities and patients served by physicians, programs' participant service completion and retention rates, and physicians' satisfaction levels. Results: Compared with young nonobligated generalists, physicians serving obligations to state programs practiced in demonstrably needier areas and cared for more patients insured under Medicaid and uninsured (48.5% vs. 28.5%, P <0.001). Service completion rates were uniformly high for loan repayment, direct incentive, and resident-support programs (93% combined) but lower for studenttargeting service-option loan (mean, 44.7%) and scholarship (mean, 66.5%) programs. State-obligated physicians were more satisfied than nonobligated physicians, and 9 of 10 indicated that they would enroll in their programs again. Obligated physicians also remained longer in their practices than nonobligated physicians (P = 0.03), with respective group retention rates of 71% versus 61% at 4 years and 55% versus 52% at 8 years. Retention rates were highest for loan repayment, direct incentive, and loan programs. Conclusions: States' support-for-service programs bring physicians to needy communities where a strong majority work happily and with at-risk patient populations; half stay over 8 years. Loan repayment and direct financial incentive programs demonstrate the broadest successes.

Despite known associations between obesity and cardiovascular disease, the relationship between obesity as reflected by body mass index (BMI) and angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD) is not fully understood. Moreover, this relationship has not been adequately defined in black patients, a group demonstrated to have lower rates of angiographic CAD despite higher rates of CAD risk factors, cardiovascular events, and CAD-related mortality. Using an angiography database from an academic hospital, we studied patients undergoing first-time, nonemergent coronary angiography. From this cohort, we selected those without previous CAD diagnosis and with complete anthropomorphic measures and outcome data. Using models that controlled for patient demographics and CAD risk factors, we compared rates of angiographic CAD for blacks and whites by BMI. Black patients had higher rates of CAD risk factors, including obesity and morbid obesity. Nevertheless, black patients were less likely to have a significant stenosis than white patients. Morbid obesity was associated with significantly less CAD in both race groups. Controlling for black-white differences in BMI and the prevalence of morbid obesity did not change the odds ratio for CAD among black patients. Racial differences in BMI and prevalence of morbid obesity do not contribute to black-white differences in CAD detected during elective angiography. The paradoxical association of morbid obesity with a lower burden of atherosclerosis may be attributed in part to the limitations of noninvasive screening in the morbidly obese and subsequent referral of patients without disease for angiography.

Tobacco use is a leading cause of cancer, and continued use after cancer diagnosis puts patients at greater risk for adverse health outcomes, including increased risk for cancer recurrence. This study surveyed National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers to assess the availability of tobacco use treatment (TUT) services. Directors and oncology providers of 58 NCI-designated Cancer Centers received invitations to participate in an online survey. The questionnaire asked about attitudes, awareness, policies, and practices related to TUT; barriers to treatment provision; and factors likely to increase services. All 58 Cancer Centers participated. Twelve (20.7%) Centers reported no TUT services for their patients. Of the remainder, 34 (58.6%) reported a TUT program within their Center and 12 (20.7%) reported external TUT services in their health care system or affiliated university. Only 62% of Centers reported routinely providing tobacco education materials to patients, just over half reported effective identification of patient tobacco use, and less than half reported an employee dedicated to providing TUT services or a clear commitment to providing TUT services from Center leadership. The 34 centers with internal TUT programs reported significantly greater services and administration support for TUT Services. These data demonstrate a national need for Cancer Centers to embrace and incorporate recommended standards for TUT. Tying TUT services to NCI recognition and providing stable funding for TUT services in Cancer Centers could lead to better health outcomes, treatment efficacy, and satisfaction for all U.S. Cancer Centers and their patients.

Objectives: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly harsh for low-income and racial and ethnic minority communities. It is not known how the pandemic has affected clinicians who provide care to these communities through safety-net practices, including clinicians participating in the National Health Service Corps (NHSC). Methods: In late 2020, we surveyed clinicians who were serving in the NHSC as of July 1, 2020, in 20 states. Clinicians reported on work and job changes and their current well-being, among other measures. Analyses adjusted for differences in subgroup response rates and clustering of clinicians within practices. Results: Of 4263 surveyed clinicians, 1890 (44.3%) responded. Work for most NHSC clinicians was affected by the pandemic, including 64.5% whose office visit numbers fell by half and 62.5% for whom most visits occurred virtually. Fewer experienced changes in their jobs; for example, only 14.9% had been furloughed. Three-quarters (76.6%) of these NHSC clinicians scored in at-risk levels for their well-being. Compared with primary care and behavioral health clinicians, dental clinicians much more often had been furloughed and had their practices close temporarily. Conclusions: The pandemic has disrupted the work, jobs, and mental health of NHSC clinicians in ways similar to its reported effects on outpatient clinicians generally. Because clinicians’ mental health worsens after a pandemic, which leads to patient disengagement and job turnover, national programs and policies should help safety-net practices build cultures that support and give greater priority to clinicians’ work, job, and mental health needs now and before the next pandemic.

Perceived organizational support (POS) may promote healthcare worker mental health, but organizational factors that foster POS during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown. The goals of this study were to identify actions and policies regarding COVID-19 that healthcare organizations can implement to promote POS and to evaluate the impact of POS on physicians' mental health, burnout, and intention to leave patient care. We conducted a cross-sectional national survey with an online panel of internal medicine physicians from the American College of Physicians in September and October of 2020. POS was measured with a 4-item scale, based on items from Eisenberger's Perceived Organizational Support Scale that were adapted for the pandemic. Mental health outcomes and burnout were measured with short screening scales. The response rate was 37.8% (N = 810). Three healthcare organization actions and policies were independently associated with higher levels of POS in a multiple linear regression model that included all actions and policies as well as potential confounding factors: opportunities to discuss ethical issues related to COVID-19 (β (regression coefficient) = 0.74, p = .001), adequate access to personal protective equipment (β = 1.00, p = .005), and leadership that listens to healthcare worker concerns regarding COVID-19 (β = 3.58, p < .001). Sanctioning workers who speak out on COVID-19 safety issues or refuse pandemic deployment was associated with lower POS (β = -2.06, p < .001). In multivariable logistic regression models, high POS was associated with approximately half the odds of screening positive for generalized anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and intention to leave patient care within 5 years. Our results suggest that healthcare organizations may be able to increase POS among physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic by guaranteeing adequate personal protective equipment, making sure that leaders listen to concerns about COVID-19, and offering opportunities to discuss ethical concerns related to caring for patients with COVID-19. Other policies and actions such as rapid COVID-19 tests may be implemented for the safety of staff and patients, but the policies and actions associated with POS in multivariable models in this study are likely to have the largest positive impact on POS. Warning or sanctioning workers who refuse pandemic deployment or speak up about worker and patient safety is associated with lower POS and should be avoided. We also found that high degrees of POS are associated with lower rates of adverse outcomes. So, by implementing the tangible support policies positively associated with POS and avoiding punitive ones, healthcare organizations may be able to reduce adverse mental health outcomes and attrition among their physicians.