Burnout among emergency physicians working at a large tertiary centre in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine (EM) is a high-stress specialty. Work related stress and burnout have been reported to negatively impact physician-patient interactions, overall physician mental and physical health, and most importantly, patient outcomes. We assessed the rates of burnout among emergency physicians (EPs) at our centre. METHODS: A local cross-sectional study to assess burnout among adult and pediatric EPs, fellows and residents was conducted at three Emergency Departments (EDs) at a single institution in Canada. The anonymous online survey encompassed demographics, the validated MBI tool (Maslach Burnout Inventory) and additional questions aimed at identifying determinants of EP burnout. Each respondent’s three MBI scale scores, (Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization and Personal Accomplishment), were calculated as described in the MBI manual. Descriptive statistics were calculated and relationships between risk factors and burnout scores were examined using t-tests, one-way ANOVAs, and/or regression analyses where appropriate. RESULTS: The survey had a 72% (84/118) response rate. Results indicated a high degree of burnout among EPs with 66.2% of respondents meeting the cutoff for burnout. Physicians who were single, female, CCFP-EM trained and those having fewer years of practice were identified to have higher burnout scores. We did not identify any factors to be predictive or any associated with Personal Accomplishment. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous literature, EPs at this institution were shown to be at risk for moderate to severe burnout. Despite this, they showed high feelings of personal accomplishment. This study suggests that opportunities exist for wellness programs targeted at identified high risk groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".