Organisational factors associated with burnout among emergency and internal medicine physicians: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify physician perspectives on factors associated with physician burnout, protective factors against burnout, and to seek potential solutions for this pervasive problem. DESIGN: A qualitative study with semistructured focus group interviews using a systematic framework analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Physicians from general internal medicine (GIM) and the emergency department (ED) at two urban tertiary care hospitals in Vancouver, Canada, were recruited. Separate GIM and ED physician focus groups were conducted virtually from July 2021 to December 2022, led by an independent facilitator. Audio recordings from focus group sessions were then transcribed for analysis. RESULTS: 41 physicians (29 GIM and 12 ED) participated in the focus groups. The dominant themes for organisational factors attributed to burnout that were highlighted by both groups included heavy workload and scheduling, frequent interruptions, interdepartmental conflict and feeling undervalued by leadership. Other contributing factors that were only emphasised by GIM physicians were pressure to work out-of-scope of their practice, pressure to admit and discharge patients quickly, as well as sexism in the workplace. Factors unique to ED physicians included experiencing violence in the workplace and having to assess patients in waiting rooms. Protective organisational factors included time to build rapport with patients, staff collegiality, working within their scope of practice, and feeling rewarded and valued by leadership. Interventions suggested by physicians included improving channels of communication between staff, increasing flexibility in scheduling and strengthening hospitalists' services. CONCLUSIONS: Most organisational factors driving burnout were common to both GIM and ED physicians, including heavy workload and scheduling, frequent interruptions, interdepartmental conflict and feeling undervalued by leadership. Leveraging protective factors and intervening on organisational factors attributed to burnout such as improving communication and enhancing support services may be effective in addressing the physician burnout epidemic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".