Changes in Burnout Among Oncology Physician Assistants Between 2015 and 2019

Abstract

PURPOSE Burnout has significant implications for the individual provider, the oncology workforce, and the quality of care for patients with cancer. The primary aim of this study was to explore temporal changes in burnout among physician assistants (PAs) in oncology in 2019 compared with 2015. METHODS Oncology PAs were surveyed to assess for burnout using the Maslach Burnout Inventory according to the same cross-sectional design of the study performed in 2015. Comparison between oncology PAs in 2015 and 2019 in the prevalence of burnout and personal and professional characteristics was performed. RESULTS Two hundred thirty-four participants completed the full-length survey. The participants in 2015 and 2019 were similar in age (41.8 v 40.3 years), sex (88.8% v 86.3% female), number of years as a PA in oncology (9.6 v 10), and percentage involved in academic practice (55.2% v 59.2%). There was a significant increase in burnout in 2019 compared with 2015 with 48.7% of PAs reporting at least one symptom of burnout compared with 34.8% (odds ratio for burnout, 2019 v 2015 = 1.92 [95% CI, 1.40 to 2.65], P < 0.001). The odds of burnout remained higher in 2019 compared with 2015 when adjusted for age, sex, relationship status, practice setting, subspecialty, practice type, and hours worked. Factors associated with burnout in both 2015 and 2019 include the percentage of time spent on patient care, collaborative physician relationship, number of hours worked, and satisfaction with compensation. No new factors associated with burnout emerged in 2019 that were not identified in 2015. CONCLUSION The rate of burnout of oncology PAs has significantly increased. Burnout in oncology PAs is multifactorial, and the increase cannot be easily explained. Additional research is needed to better define the drivers of PA burnout.

Moral Distress, Organizational Climate, and the Risk of Burnout Among Physician Assistants in Oncology

“…22 Burnout was defined in this study as the presence of high score on the EE subscale (≥ 27) and/or a high score on the DP subscale (≥ 10). 15,20,21,23…”

“…The MBI is considered the gold standard for assessment of burnout in health care providers and has been used extensively in studies exploring the well-being of various professions that make up the oncology team. [16][17][18][19][20][21] The MBI consists of 22 items and examines the key dimensions related to burnout with three subscales: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and sense of personal accomplishment. Using established cut-scores, scores were classified into high, moderate, or low levels for each subscale.…”

The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up

“…This entire process can add significant additional time and logistic toxicity for patients and care partners, and also prescribers and pharmacists [ 2 , 6 , 8 , 11 ]. This is especially pertinent with record rates of clinician burnout [ 12 – 14 ], with a major contributor being administrative burdens of navigating supportive care medications [ 15 ]. Additional issues with using multiple pharmacies are decreased adherence [ 16 ], and safety concerns — prescription duplications and drug-drug interactions, especially if each individual pharmacy’s staff assumes that another pharmacy serves as the primary pharmacy for the patient, and is primarily responsible for checks.…”

Association of Organizational Context, Collaborative Practice Models, and Burnout Among Physician Assistants in Oncology

“…Oncology PAs from the 2019 membership database of the Association of Physician Assistants in the Oncology were contacted to participate in a study on provider well-being and collaborative practice as previously reported. 13 Survey invitations were sent electronically using the research electronic data capture web-based survey platform. After providing electronic informed consent, all participants were invited to complete the full-length survey with three weekly reminder e-mails sent to potential participants who had not completed the full-length survey.…”