Skip to main content

Burnout May Be Costing Your Institution Millions Each Year

SAN FRANCISCO — Burned out physicians are more likely to leave their job, and replacing them could be costing your institution millions of dollars each year, researchers reported October 13 at the 2017 American Conference on Physician Health.
Burnout is widespread among physicians in the United States, with numerous surveys showing rates above 50%. However, the effect of burnout on physician turnover in hospitals and academic medical centers is less well understood.
To learn more about its effects, Maryam S. Hamidi, PhD, associate director of scholarship and health promotion at Stanford Medicine WellMD Center in Palo Alto, California, and colleagues conducted a longitudinal study of physicians at Stanford Health Care and Stanford Children's Health.
Of 831 physicians invited, 473 completed the Stanford Physician Wellness Survey in 2013 and consented to have their unique identifier numbers included for data linkage. The survey included questions on burnout, work hours, and surgical specialty, and assessed depression, anxiety, and sleep issues through the PROMIS assessment tools. As reported previously, 25.8% of respondents were burned out.
Using the unique identifier numbers, Dr Hamidi and colleagues determined that 21% of burned out physicians had left Stanford by 2015 compared with just 10% of their non-burned-out peers. The authors estimate that the 11% difference between the groups was the proportion who departed because of burnout.
After adjusting for other factors, such as depression or work hours, they found that the odds of leaving the institution were 2.68-fold higher among burned out vs non-burned-out physicians. In addition, burnout was the only factor significantly related to departure in various models, Dr Hamidi said.

Recruitment Costs Run High

When the researchers extrapolated the 11% departure rate caused by burnout to all 2023 medical faculty at Stanford Medicine, they estimate the institution would lose 58 physicians in a 2-year period.
The cost to recruit a new physician to Stanford runs between $268,000 and $957,000, according to data from the university's chief financial officer (CFO). Thus, replacing burned out physicians costs the institution between $15,544,000 and $55,506,000 in a 2-year period, Dr Hamidi told a standing-room-only audience.
After Dr Hamidi's presentation, several audience members asked what was included in the recruitment figure. Dr Hamidi and coauthor Bryan Bohman, interim director of Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, chief medical officer at University Healthcare Alliance, and clinical associate professor of anesthesia and critical care at the Stanford School of Medicine, emphasized that the estimated costs do not include any salary. Dr Bohman did note that some of the cost may be unique to Stanford because of the high cost of living, and that new-hire packages include housing support. But even if the number were cut in half, it is still a large cost, they note.
"I hear that number of $250,000 thrown around, but how do we get to that number?" one audience member asked. He noted that taking such a "dramatic number" to his CFO could be challenging.
"We actually got that data from our CFO," Dr Hamidi responded. "They have that data. That is a known number. They just hadn't linked it to burnout, which is what we've done here."
Chris Sinsky, MD, vice president of professional satisfaction at the American Medical Association and an internist at Medical Associates Clinic and Health Plans in Dubuque, Iowa, concurred with their findings. "Several pieces of data are completely aligned with what you have just presented," said Dr Sinksy, who was not involved in the study. "For example, some of the [healthcare chief executive officers] in the country have identified $500 to more than $1 million as the cost for recruitment for a physician. Also, the recruitment company Cejka has published their estimates, and they estimate it at $500 to $1.3 million, depending on whether there is a 6- or 12-month vacancy."
She also said that she and several colleagues recently published a calculator in JAMA Internal Medicine that allows anyone interested to estimate the how much their institution spends to replace burned out physicians. "And it is very similar data to what you have here," she remarked.
Dr Bohman also noted that senior leadership at Stanford Medicine became much more interested in dealing with the issue of burnout after seeing these data. "After we engaged our CFO from the school of medicine in this study, the receptivity and interest in forming our WellMD Center and recruiting Tait [Shanafelt, MD, to lead it], had a significant inflection point."
"Aside from the other reasons that we need to take care of physicians and reduce burnout, aside from the humanistic reasons, we are trying to make a point that institutions should invest in preventing burnout because if they don't do that, it will have a high financial cost," Dr Hamidi said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
2017 American Conference on Physician Health. Presented October 13, 2017.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Sitting at Work Raises All-Cause and CV Mortality Risk

May 21, 2012 (Lyon, France) — Sitting at work raises the risk of dying from cardiovascular (CV) and metabolic diseases, as well as the risk of dying from all causes, regardless of any exercise in which the individual may engage. That was the finding of a study reported here at the 19th European Congress on Obesity (ECO) by Anne Grunseit, PhD, from the Prevention Research Collaboration in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, and Norwegian colleagues. Research is increasingly focusing on sedentary behavior with low energy expenditure, including sitting and lying down, as behavioral risk factors for obesity and chronic disease. Sitting occurs during travel, while watching television, using computers, and reading. But with people often spending at least 9 hours a day at work, with fewer than 20% of jobs requiring physical exertion, and with many people spending at least 4 hours a day sitting at work, the sedentary time at work is high, and many people ar...