Search

Health care professionals and the institutions in which they work are being stretched to their limits amidst the current COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, a second longstanding pandemic has been brought to the fore: the entrenched system of racial injustice and oppression. The first pandemic is new, and to date, substantial resources have been allocated to urgently addressing its mitigation; the second has a long history with inconsistent attention and resources but has recently been spotlighted more intensely than at any time in the nation's recent past. The authors contend that these 2 simultaneous pandemics have brought forth the need for institutions in the United States to make a renewed commitment to respect, wellness, diversity, and inclusion. While investment and leadership in these domains have always been essential, these have largely been viewed as a "nice-to-have" option. The events of much of 2020 (most notably) have illustrated that committing to and investing in policies, programs, centers, and leadership to drive change in these domains are essential and a "need-to-have" measure. The authors outline the necessity of investing in the promotion of cultures of inclusive excellence at both individual and organizational levels to coordinate a united response to the simultaneous pandemics. It is in the interests of health care systems to consider the wellness of the workforce to overcome the longer-term economic, systemic, and social trauma that will likely occur for years to come at both the individual and institutional levels. Maintaining or augmenting investment is necessary despite the economic challenges the nation faces. Now is the time to cultivate resilience and wellness through a renewed commitment to cultures of respect, diversity, and inclusion. This commitment is urgently needed to support and sustain the health care workforce and maintain outstanding health care systems for future generations., (Copyright © 2020 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

These are challenging times for physicians. Extensive changes in the practice environment have altered the nature of physicians' interactions with patients and their role in the health care delivery system. Many physicians feel as if they are "cogs in the wheel" of austere corporations that care more about productivity and finances than compassion or quality. They often do not see how the strategy and plan of their organization align with the values of the profession. Despite their expertise, they frequently do not feel they have a voice or input in the operational plan of their work unit, department, or organization. At their core, the authors believe all of these factors represent leadership issues. Many models of leadership have been proposed, and there are a number of effective philosophies and approaches. Here, the authors propose a new integrative model of Wellness-Centered Leadership (WCL). WCL includes core skills and qualities from the foremost leadership philosophies along with evidence on the relationship between leadership and physician well-being and distills them into a single framework designed to cultivate leadership behaviors that promote engagement and professional fulfillment. The 3 elements of WCL are: care about people always, cultivate individual and team relationships, and inspire change. A summary of the mindset, behaviors, and outcomes of the elements of the WCL model is presented, and the application of the elements for physician leaders is discussed. The authors believe that learning and developing the skills that advance these elements should be the aspiration of all health care leaders and a foundational focus of leadership development programs. If cultivated, the authors believe that WCL will empower individual and team performance to address the current problems faced by health care organizations as well as the iterative innovation needed to address challenges that may arise in the decades to come., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Occupational distress among clinicians and its impact on quality of care is a major threat to the health care delivery system. To address threats to clinician well-being, many institutions have introduced a new senior leadership position-the health care chief wellness officer (CWO). This role is distinct from CWOs or other wellness leadership positions that have historically existed outside of medicine. The health care CWO role was established to reduce widespread occupational distress in clinicians by improving the work environment rather than by promoting health behaviors to reduce health insurance costs. A complex array of system-level drivers has contributed to clinician distress. Developing and overseeing the execution of a strategy to address these challenges and working in partnership with other operational leaders to improve well-being require a correctly placed senior leader with the appropriate authority and resources, such as a CWO.Health care CWOs must focus primarily on improving their organizations' work environment and culture, not on developing individual-level interventions, such as personal resilience, mindfulness, and self-care offerings. The goal of this work is to address what is wrong with the practice environment, not to make individuals better able to tolerate a broken system. Metrics to evaluate organizational progress as well as the efficacy of the health care CWO and his or her team are discussed in this Perspective. Occupational distress in clinicians is widespread and has implications for quality of care. Vanguard organizations have begun to put into place the leaders, infrastructure, and improvement teams necessary to address this issue. The health care CWO plays a critical role in the effectiveness of these efforts.

The current health care practice environment has resulted in a crescendo of burnout among physicians, nurses, and advanced practice providers. Burnout among health care professionals is primarily caused by organizational factors rather than problems with personal resilience. Four major drivers motivate health care leaders to build well-being programs: the moral-ethical case (caring for their people), the business case (cost of turnover and lower quality), the tragic case (a physician suicide), and the regulatory case (accreditation requirements). Ultimately, health care provider burnout harms patients. The authors discuss the purpose; scope; structure and resources; metrics of success; and a framework for action for organizational well-being programs. The purpose of such a program is to oversee organizational efforts to reduce the occupational risk for burnout, cultivate professional well-being among health care professionals, and, in turn, optimize the function of health care systems. The program should measure, benchmark, and longitudinally assess these domains. The successful program will develop deep expertise regarding the drivers of professional fulfillment among health care professionals; an approach to evaluate system flaws and relevant dimensions of organizational culture; and knowledge and experience with specific tactics to foster improvement. Different professional disciplines have both shared challenges and unique needs. Effective programs acknowledge and address these differences rather than ignore them. Ultimately, a professional workforce with low burnout and high professional fulfillment is vital to providing the best care to patients. Vanguard institutions have embraced this understanding and are pursuing health care provider well-being as a core organizational strategy.

Purpose: Many medical students experience distress during medical school. If matriculating medical students (MMSs) begin training with similar or better mental health than age-similar controls, this would support existing concerns about the negative impact of training on student well-being. The authors compared mental health indicators of MMSs versus those of a probability-based sample of the general U.S. population., Method: In 2012 all MMSs at six U.S. medical schools were invited to participate in a survey during orientation. The research team surveyed a probability-based sample of U.S. individuals using the same questions in 2011. Individuals from the population sample who completed a four-year college degree and matched within the appropriate age strata (< 30, 31-35, 36-40, > 40) were compared with MMSs. Surveys included demographics and validated instruments to measure burnout; depression symptoms; and mental, emotional, physical, and overall of quality of life (QOL)., Results: Demographic characteristics of the 582/938 (62%) responding MMSs were similar to U.S. MMSs. Relative to 546 age-similar college graduates, MMSs had lower rates of burnout (27.3% versus 37.3%, P < .001) and depression symptoms (26.2% versus 42.4%, P < .0001) and higher scores across the four QOL domains assessed relative to controls (all P < .0001). These findings persisted on multivariate analysis after adjusting for age, sex, relationship status, and race/ethnicity., Conclusions: These findings, along with high rates of distress reported in medical students and residents, support concerns that the training process and environment contribute to the deterioration of mental health in developing physicians.