MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389893171 · doi:10.1080/10408363.2023.2285284

Pathologist workload, burnout, and wellness: connecting the dots

2023· review· en· W4389893171 on OpenAlexaff
Ziyad Khatab, K. Hanna, Andrew Rofaeil, Catherine Wang, Raymond Maung, George M. Yousef

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadMultidisciplinary approachComputer scienceQuality assuranceMedicineMeasure (data warehouse)Medical physicsPathologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No standard tool to measure pathologist workload currently exists. An accurate measure of workload is needed for determining the number of pathologists to be hired, distributing the workload fairly among pathologists, and assessing the overall cost of pathology consults. Initially, simple tools such as counting cases or slides were used to give an estimate of the workload. More recently, multiple workload models, including relative value units (RVUs), the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) point system, Level 4 Equivalent (L4E), Work2Quality (W2Q), and the University of Washington, Seattle (UW) slide count method, have been developed. There is no "ideal" model that is universally accepted. The main differences among the models come from the weights assigned to different specimen types, differential calculations for organs, and the capture of additional tasks needed for safe and timely patient care. Academic centers tend to see more complex cases that require extensive sampling and additional testing, while community-based and private laboratories deal more with biopsies. Additionally, some systems do not account for teaching, participation in multidisciplinary rounds, quality assurance activities, and medical oversight. A successful workload model needs to be continually updated to reflect the current state of practice.Awareness about physician burnout has gained attention in recent years and has been added to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (World Health Organization, WHO) as an occupational phenomenon. However, the extent to which this affects pathologists is not well understood. According to the WHO, burnout syndrome is diagnosed by the presence of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization from one's work (cynicism related to one's job), and a low sense of personal achievement or accomplishment. Three drivers of burnout are the demand for productivity, lack of recognition, and electronic health records. Prominent consequences of physician burnout are economic and personal costs to the public and to the providers.Wellness is physical and mental well-being that allows individuals to manage stress effectively and to thrive in both their professional and personal lives. To achieve wellness, it is necessary to understand the root causes of burnout, including over-work and working under stressful conditions. Wellness is more than the absence of stress or burnout, and the responsibility of wellness should be shared by pathologists themselves, their healthcare organization, and governing bodies. Each pathologist needs to take their own path to achieve wellness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory SciencesSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207