Search

Background Sustained crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic would be expected to impact the transition from trainee to consultant for anaesthetists or intensivists, but limited research exists on this important topic. This study aimed to examine the social context of this crucial career transition during the pandemic and post-pandemic periods. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with anaesthetists and intensivists who became consultants after the first UK lockdown. Thematic analysis was used and data saturation was reached at 33 interviews. Results The pandemic substantially impacted the transition to consultant role in various ways, including professional identity, clinical and non-clinical responsibilities, and wellbeing. Participants experienced identity confusion, self-doubt, and moral injury, resulting in intense emotional distress, feelings of guilt and helplessness, which persisted beyond the pandemic. They also felt unprepared for their consultant roles because of disruptions in training. The pandemic exaggerated the vulnerability of those transitioning to consultants, because of increased clinical uncertainties, and pressures of the growing backlog. Additionally, the pandemic impacted on the wellbeing of those transitioning to consultants, intensifying feelings of anxiety and stress. We also identified unique opportunities presented by the pandemic, which accelerated learning and encouraged post-traumatic growth. Our study identified practical solutions that may improve transition experience at individual, organisational, and national levels. Conclusions Persistent crises significantly impact the transition from trainee to consultant. Our findings generated insights into the challenges of this critical career transition and staff wellbeing, and serve to inform approaches of ongoing support for those transitioning to consultants.

Despite growing evidence for the need for work-life balance (WLB) for faculty at academic health centers, mentors frequently do not know how to advise their mentees on this topic. WLB impacts job satisfaction and intent to stay, and physicians are particularly at risk. In this study, we explored exit survey comments of faculty of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine citing work-life balance as a reason to leave (WLB-ARTL). Between July 2017 and December 2020, 59 faculty provided open-ended survey responses related to reasons for leaving, what they liked and disliked about being faculty, mentorship, and more. Using a qualitative descriptive design, we analyzed open-ended responses using a systematic, iterative, thematic approach via NVIVO software. We classified themes using Shanafelt’s drivers of engagement and burnout: workload/job demands; efficiency/ resources; meaning in work; culture/values; control/flexibility; social support/community at work; and work-life integration. While there were numerous quotes across all themes, we chose to summarize emergent codes with the most faculty representation and those that can most easily be addressed through mentorship: career development, culture and people, and hours and schedule (related to themes of meaning in work, culture and values, community at work, work-life integration, and control and flexibility). To improve faculty retention, institutional leaders should focus on developing mentors’ career coaching and mentoring skills. Additional focus should be placed on training mentors to discuss and address WLB among their faculty mentees.

Mentors at Academic Health Centers (AHC) are challenged by mentee attrition, with one in five physicians reporting an intent to leave in 2020. AHCs struggle with physician replacement costs, which are exorbitant. Data-driven efforts to mitigate attrition during the pandemic require an understanding of reasons to leave. This study compares characteristics of exiting faculty at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM) two years before to two years after April 1, 2020. Demographic and reason to leave variables from exit interviews of 168 faculty that left UNM SOM between April 2018-to-March 2020 and 151 faculty that left between April 2020-to-March 2022 were compared. Exiting faculty were stratified into those resigning vs. retiring. Distributions of each variable were analyzed for statistically significant differences using a chi-square or Fisher’s 2-sided exact test. The pandemic was associated with an approximately three-fold higher proportion of retirement contributing to total attrition than before (25.8% vs. 8.9%; p