210 Addressing burnout in radiologists: Causes, impact on patient care, and potential solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Goals: This study objective is to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of burnout in practicing radiologists, with a focus on personal as well as systemic factors. It aims to identify and assess the existing strategies to mitigate burnout, enhance radiologist performance, and improve the quality of patient care. Methods/Study Population: The present study is a systematic review that summarizes existing literature on burnout in radiology, examining its prevalence, risk factors, and effect on diagnostic accuracy, decision-making, and job satisfaction. The review will synthesize validated evidence for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and professional fulfillment. The review discusses trends and solutions that have emerged from analysis of data within differing countries, subspecialties, and career stages, focusing on elevated risk of burnout in radiologists. It also assesses downstream effects on patient care quality such as missed diagnoses and increased medical errors. The review also discusses potential strategies for mitigating these negative effects on healthcare delivery. Results/Anticipated Results: The anticipated results of this review are expected to reveal significant variability in burnout rates across radiology subspecialties and practice settings, with prevalence ranging from 33% to 88% (Fawzy et al., 2023). Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization emerge as the most reported symptoms as consistently highlighted in previous studies. Major contributors such as workload, administrative burdens, and technological isolation (e.g., remote work and reduced face-to-face interaction) are anticipated. Radiologists in high-demand areas like interventional radiology and those in private practice may show higher burnout levels than those in academic settings. Protective factors, like exercise, supportive environments, and work-life balance, are expected to reduce burnout levels. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study calls attention to the importance of addressing radiologist burnout as a key institutional priority. Early and effective interventions are essential for improving job satisfaction, reducing medical errors resulting in enhanced patient care. Addressing burnout is crucial for maintaining a sustainable and effective radiology workflow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".