Search

This study aimed to identify factors associated with burnout in nurses and nurses' opinions regarding interventions to promote well-being during crisis conditions such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.Burnout among nurses is prevalent under usual conditions and may increase during crises such as COVID-19.Researchers conducted a survey of 1103 frontline nurses in a single New York City hospital during the first (spring 2020) and second (fall 2020/winter 2021) local waves of COVID-19.Burnout prevalence increased from 45% to 52% between the first and second wave. Younger age, female gender, posttraumatic stress, anxiety or depressive symptoms, history of burnout, feeling less valued by hospital leadership, less informed of responsibilities, less certain about duration of enhanced workload, and prepared by prepandemic experience were predictive of burnout in multivariable analyses.Although some identified risk factors for burnout were nonmodifiable, others may be modifiable by hospital leadership.

A major crisis such as a natural disaster, pandemic, or man-made attack can have a major impact on medical student and physician trainee well-being. This chapter details a number of efforts to preserve and promote trainee well-being, including meeting basic needs and safety, robust and supportive communications, psychosocial and mental health support, “on the ground” resources, and support from and for leadership. Basic needs of medical students and trainees during a crisis include housing, transportation, childcare, and resources to maintain physical health and personal safety. Robust and supportive communication includes attention to the purpose of communication, anticipation of needs, addressing of concerns, and sharing of mental health and well-being related resources. Psychosocial and mental health support may include group discussions, one-on-one support, psychiatric care, and spiritual care support. Finally, support for leaders can involve leadership trainings and resources. Strategically supporting medical student and GME trainee needs during a crisis can maintain and enhance their well-being.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Purpose To examine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical trainees (residents and fellows) working at Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in New York City (NYC), the initial epicenter of the United States pandemic. Method The authors administered a survey to 991 trainees in frontline specialties working at MSH in NYC between April and May 2020. The instrument assessed symptoms of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder, and burnout. Psychiatric screens were aggregated into 1 composite measure, and meeting criteria on any of the 3 scales was considered a positive screen for psychiatric symptoms. The survey also assessed COVID-19-related exposures, worries, coping strategies, and desired interventions. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with psychiatric symptoms and burnout. Results Of the 560 respondents (56.6% response rate), 29.7% screened positive for psychiatric symptoms and 35.8% screened positive for burnout. History of a mental illness, COVID-19-related duties and personal/career worries, and coping by substance use were associated with increased likelihood of screening positive for psychiatric symptoms. Positive emotion-focused coping and feeling valued by supervisors were associated with decreased likelihood. Internal medicine and surgical specialties, a history of mental illness, increased duty hours, duty-related worries, personal/career worries, coping via self-blame and venting, and coping via substance use were associated with higher odds of burnout. Feeling valued by supervisors was associated with decreased burnout odds. The most common crisis-related needs included access to personal protective equipment, food provisions, and financial support. Conclusions Psychological distress and burnout affected approximately one-third of trainees sampled during the height of the pandemic in NYC. As the pandemic surged beyond NYC, these findings suggest that interventions should include addressing basic needs, promoting leadership affirmation, moderating duty hours, supporting trainees financially, and enhancing mental health support.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant mental health consequences for frontline health care workers (FHCWs). However, no known study has examined the prevalence, determinants, or correlates of posttraumatic growth (PTG) in this population. Methods Data were analyzed from a prospective cohort of FHCWs at an urban tertiary care hospital in New York City (NYC). Assessments were conducted during the spring 2020 pandemic peak (Wave 1) and seven months later (Wave 2). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify Wave 1 sociodemographic, occupational, and psychosocial factors associated with PTG at Wave 2, and the association between aspects of PTG with burnout and pandemic-related PTSD symptoms at Wave 2. Results A total 76.8% of FHCWs endorsed moderate or greater PTG; the most prevalent domains were increased appreciation of life (67.0%), improved relationships (48.7%), and greater personal strength (44.1%). Non-White race/ethnicity, greater levels of positive emotions, pandemic-related PTSD symptoms, dispositional gratitude, and feelings of inspiration were independently associated with PTG. At Wave 2, endorsement of spiritual growth during the pandemic was associated with 52% and 44% lower odds of screening positive for pandemic-related PTSD symptoms and burnout, respectively; greater improvement in relationships was associated with 36% lower odds of screening positive for burnout. Limitations Single institution study and use of self-report instruments. Conclusions Nearly 4-of-5 FHCWs report pandemic-related PTG, driven largely by salutogenic factors assessed during the pandemic surge. Interventions to bolster these factors may help promote PTG and mitigate risk for burnout and pandemic-related PTSD symptoms in this population.

The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM), in which social workers, primary care physicians, and a consulting psychiatrist work as a team, is an established approach to the treatment of common mental health conditions in primary care settings. Following implementation of a CoCM depression care program at our hospital-based academic primary care practice, we observed a low rate of retention with the use of problem solving therapy/behavioral activation (PST/BA). Our aim in this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), an evidence-based, flexible strategy that focuses on the relationship between depression and interpersonal challenges, compared to PST/BA. In 2015, most patients enrolled in our CoCM received PST/BA. In 2016, most patients received IPT. Patients who were enrolled and discharged from our CoCM depression care program in the years 2015 and 2016 and received either PST/BA or IPT, were included. Our primary measure was the difference in change in PHQ-9 score between the PST/BA and the IPT groups. Secondary outcomes included the difference in the change in GAD-7 score and measures of glycemic and blood pressure control between the two groups. Two hundred thirty four patients were included in our analysis. One hundred sixty five received PST/BA and 69 received IPT. There was no difference between groups in baseline demographics or measures of depression, anxiety, presence of hypertension, or presence of prediabetes/diabetes. Our primary analysis demonstrated a greater decrease in PHQ-9 score in patients receiving IPT (9.93) compared to those receiving PST/BA (5.41) (p

Frontline healthcare workers (FHCWs) responding to the COVID-19 pandemic develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) symptoms. Such symptoms are associated with burnout, occupational and relational difficulties. In the current study, we examined the prospective association between acute transdiagnostic COVID-19-related PTSD, MDD, and GAD symptoms at pandemic outset, and burnout and functional difficulties several months later in FHCWs in New York City.Wave 1 symptoms of COVID-19-related PTSD, MDD, and GAD, were assessed in 787 FHCWs from April 14 to May 11th, 2020. Burnout and occupational difficulties were assessed at wave 1 and wave 2, approximately 7 months later.After adjusting for wave 1 burnout, wave 1 MDD symptoms, particularly sleep difficulties, loss of interest, and feeling tired/having little energy, collectively explained 42% incremental variance in this outcome. After adjusting for wave 1 work difficulties, MDD and PTSD symptoms, particularly feeling tired/having little energy, loss of interest, and negative expectations of self/world, collectively explained 42% incremental variance in this outcome. After adjusting for wave 1 relationship difficulties, MDD, GAD, and PTSD symptoms, particularly depressed mood, irritability, and appetite disturbance, explained 26% incremental variance in this outcome.Results highlight psychiatric symptoms assessed during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic that may help predict burnout and work and relationship difficulties in FHCWs. Early interventions aimed at ameliorating transdiagnostic symptoms of MDD, PTSD, and GAD may help mitigate risk for burnout and functional difficulties in this population.

(1) Background: This study examined the prevalence and correlates of factors associated with self-reported mental health service use in a longitudinal cohort of frontline health care workers (FHCWs) providing care to patients with COVID-19 throughout 2020. (2) Methods: The study comprised a two-wave survey (n = 780) administered in April–May 2020 (T1) and November 2020–January 2021 (T2) to faculty, staff, and trainees in a large urban medical center. Factors associated with initiation, cessation, or continuation of mental health care over time were examined. (3) Results: A total of 19.1% of FHCWs endorsed currently utilizing mental health services, with 11.4% continuing, 4.2% initiating, and 3.5% ceasing services between T1 and T2. Predisposing and need-related factors, most notably a history of a mental health diagnosis and distress related to systemic racism, predicted service initiation and continuation. Among FHCWs with a prior mental health history, those with greater perceived resilience were less likely to initiate treatment at T2. Descriptive data highlighted the importance of services around basic and safety needs (e.g., reliable access to personal protective equipment) relative to mental health support in the acute phase of the pandemic. (4) Conclusions: Results may be helpful in identifying FHCWs who may benefit from mental health services.

To evaluate the direct and interacting effects of personal and systemic factors that contribute to psychological distress among frontline healthcare workers (FHCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Data were collected using a hospital-wide, cross-sectional survey. A multivariable binary logistic regression and relative importance analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with screening positive for C19-distress.A total of 1005 (39.0%, 95%CI - 37.1-40.9%) out of 2579 FHCWs met the prespecified cutoff values for significant symptoms of C19-distress. Fewer sleep hours and lower perceptions of leadership support explained the majority of variance (19.4% relative variance explained [RVE]) in C19-distress, followed by team camaraderie (6.4% RVE), physical exercise (4.9% RVE), and engagement in hobbies (3.2% RVE).These results underscore the importance of restorative behaviors as potential targets to help decrease distress and promote resilience in FHCWs.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an increased risk of psychiatric symptoms among frontline health care workers (FHCWs). In the current study, a novel "symptomics" approach was employed to examine the association between acute transdiagnostic symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and burnout and work and relationship difficulties in FHCWs at an urban tertiary care hospital in New York City. METHODS: Symptoms of COVID-19-related PTSD (4-item PTSD Checklist-5), MDD (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), burnout (Single-Item Mini-Z Burnout Assessment), and functional difficulties (Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning) were assessed. Relative importance analyses were conducted to identify PTSD, MDD, and GAD symptoms associated with burnout and functional difficulties. RESULTS: The total number of eligible participants included 6,026 presumed FHCWs, of which 3,360 (55.8%) completed the survey and 2,579 (76.8%) of whom endorsed directly treating patients with COVID-19 and provided sufficient responses to our outcome variables for analysis. Feeling tired/having little energy, being easily annoyed or irritable, and feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge were most strongly associated with burnout; feeling tired/having little energy accounted for the greatest amount of explained variance (> 15%). Negative expectations of oneself or the world, trouble concentrating, and feeling easily annoyed or irritable were most strongly associated with work difficulties; negative expectations of oneself or the world accounted for the greatest amount of explained variance (> 9%). Feeling easily annoyed or irritable, negative expectations about oneself or the world, and feeling bad about oneself were most strongly associated with relationship difficulties; feeling easily annoyed or irritable accounted for the greatest amount of explained variance (> 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study underscore the importance of a transdiagnostic, symptom-based approach when examining associations between acute psychopathology and burnout and functional difficulties in FHCWs. Further work is needed to determine if early interventions aimed at ameliorating specific psychiatric symptoms may help mitigate risk for peri- and posttraumatic burnout and functional difficulties in this population.

Introduction Little is known about the relationship between moral distress and mental health problems. We examined moral distress in 2579 frontline healthcare workers (FHCWs) caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients during the height of the spring 2020 pandemic surge in New York City. The goals of the study were to identify common dimensions of COVID‐19 moral distress; and to examine the relationship between moral distress, and positive screen for COVID‐19‐related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, burnout, and work and interpersonal functional difficulties. Method Data were collected in spring 2020, through an anonymous survey delivered to a purposively‐selected sample of 6026 FHCWs at Mount Sinai Hospital; 2579 endorsed treating COVID‐19 patients and provided complete survey responses. Physicians, house staff, nurses, physician assistants, social workers, chaplains, and clinical dietitians comprised the sample. Results The majority of the sample (52.7%–87.8%) endorsed moral distress. Factor analyses revealed three dimensions of COVID‐19 moral distress: negative impact on family, fear of infecting others, and work‐related concerns. All three factors were significantly associated with severity and positive screen for COVID‐19‐related PTSD symptoms, burnout, and work and interpersonal difficulties. Relative importance analyses revealed that concerns about work competencies and personal relationships were most strongly related to all outcomes. Conclusion Moral distress is prevalent in FHCWs and includes family‐, infection‐, and work‐related concerns. Prevention and treatment efforts to address moral distress during the acute phase of potentially morally injurious events may help mitigate risk for PTSD, burnout, and functional difficulties.

Objective To identify specific thresholds of daily electronic health record (EHR) time after work and daily clerical time burden associated with burnout in clinical faculty. Materials and Methods We administered an institution-wide survey to faculty in all departments at Mount Sinai Health System from November 2018 to February 2019. The Maslach Burnout Inventory and Mayo Well-Being Index assessed burnout. Demographics, possible confounding variables, and time spent on EHR work/clerical burden were assessed. Results Of 4156 eligible faculty members, 1781(42.9%) participated in the survey. After adjustment for background factors, EHR frustration (odds ratio [OR]=1.64–1.66), spending >90 minutes on EHR-outside the workday by self-report (OR = 1.41–1.90) and >1 hour of self-reported clerical work/day (OR = 1.39) were associated with burnout. Reporting that one’s practice unloads clerical burden (OR = 0.50–0.66) and higher resilience scores (OR = 0.77–0.84) were negatively associated with burnout. Spending >90 minutes/day on EHR-outside work (OR = 0.66–0.67) and >60 minutes/day on clerical work (OR = 0.54–0.58) was associated with decreased likelihood of satisfactory work–life integration (WLI) and professional satisfaction (PS). Greater meaning in work was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving WLI (OR = 2.51) and PS (OR = 21.67). Conclusion Results suggest there are thresholds of excessive time on the EHR-outside the workday (>90 minutes) and overall clerical tasks (>60 minutes), above which clinical faculty may be at increased risk for burnout, as well as reduced WLI and PS, independent of demographic characteristics and clinical work hours. These thresholds of EHR and clerical burden may inform interventions aimed at mitigating this burden to reduce physician burnout.

Data were collected between April 14 and May 11, 2020, during the peak and initial decline of the acute patient surge. An anonymous, incentivized ($25 gift card) survey was emailed to a purposively selected sample of 6,026 FHCWs at Mount Sinai Hospital, an urban tertiary care hospital in NYC. Importance analyses revealed that positive emotions (interested [relative variance explained [RVE] = 14.7%], enthusiastic [RVE = 11.2%]), self-efficacy (RVE = 13.8%), nonengagement in substance use coping (RVE = 9.9%), higher purpose in life (RVE = 7.8%), and emotional support (RVE = 6.9%) and leadership support (RVE = 6.8%) were most strongly associated with psychological resilience, collectively explaining > 70% of the variance in these scores. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine factors associated with psychological resilience in FHCWs during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an enormous strain on health care workers, and its potential impact has implications for the physical and emotional well-being of the work force. As hospital systems run far over capacity, facing possible shortages of critical care medical resources and personal protective equipment as well as clinician deaths, the psychological stressors necessitate a strong well-being support model for staff. At the Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York City, health care workers have been heroically providing frontline care to COVID-19 patients while facing their own appropriate fears for their personal safety in the setting of contagion. This moral obligation cannot be burdened by unacceptable risks; the health system’s full support is required to address the needs of its workforce. In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe how an MSHS Employee, Faculty, and Trainee Crisis Support Task Force—created in early March 2020 and composed of behavioral health, human resources, and well-being leaders from across the health system—used a rapid needs assessment model to capture the concerns of the workforce related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The task force identified 3 priority areas central to promoting and maintaining the well-being of the entire MSHS workforce during the pandemic: meeting basic daily needs; enhancing communications for delivery of current, reliable, and reassuring messages; and developing robust psychosocial and mental health support options. Using a work group strategy, the task force operationalized the rollout of support initiatives for each priority area. Attending to the emotional well-being of health care workers has emerged as a central element in the MSHS COVID-19 response, which continues to be committed to the physical and emotional needs of a workforce that courageously faces this crisis.

Resilience is the ability of an individual to bounce back from adversity and move forward with life. In this chapter, the focus is on four elements of resilience and how they impact health. The four elements of resilience discussed fit into the GROW framework: good emotions, reason and purpose, others (support from and to others), and wellness flexibility. Each of these elements impacts health in a variety of ways. When patients have high levels of good emotions, a strong sense of reason and purpose, consistent support from and to others, and the ability to be flexible, be self-aware, and learn from mistakes, their health outcomes are better in a variety of diseases. This chapter includes evidence for the impact of resilience in cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic, kidney, and neuropsychiatric illnesses. Patients can improve their resilience in these 4 domains by practicing skills such as gratitude, identifying values and setting goals, yoga, conflict-resolution, building and deepening relationships, volunteering, and accepting one’s faults and failures and learning from them. Clinicians can encourage patients to enhance their resilience with simple interventions that might, in turn, improve their overall health and well-being.

Mental illness is a significant cause of disability worldwide, including here in the United States. Given the shortage of trained mental health professionals, a significant portion of patients needing care are managed in the primary care setting. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), for example, are seeking to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population, but many are facing significant challenges relating to integration of new services. We sought to elucidate barriers faced by primary care practitioners (PCPs)-physicians, physician trainees and nurse practitioners-at a New York primary care clinic, which impede delivery of optimal care to those suffering from mental illness. The study was conducted with 32 PCPs in 2016-2017 at Mount Sinai Internal Medicine Associates in New York City. For the quantitative component of the study, a 54-item questionnaire was devised to assess their attitude, behavior and confidence in managing psychiatric patients. For the qualitative component, data was obtained from 3 open-ended questions. Responses were coded for salient themes. Analysis revealed a range of difficulties faced by PCPs. Overall, participants felt that the need to integrate mental health care into primary care was important, however they reported significant barriers in terms of lack of time, lack of resources, low confidence in treating more complex mental health conditions and difficulties with referring patient to mental health specialists. Despite a growing body of evidence that integration of mental health services in primary care leads to improved outcomes, addressing barriers to care will be key to ensuring feasibility of integration measures.

This quality improvement study compares commonly used screening methods for alcohol and drug use among adult patients at primary care clinics to examine their association with implementation outcomes and to evaluate the best approach for implementing electronic health record–integrated screening., Key Points Question How are commonly used screening methods for alcohol and drug use associated with implementation outcomes among adult patients in primary care clinics, and what is the best approach for implementing electronic health record–integrated screening? Findings In this quality improvement study implementing systematic screening for alcohol and drug use among 93 114 patients in 6 primary care clinics, 72% of patients completed screening. Screening at any visit (in comparison with screening at annual examinations only) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol and drug use, and self-administered screening was associated with greater detection of moderate- to high-risk alcohol use compared with staff-administered screening. Meaning These findings suggest that, to maximize the adoption of substance use screening during primary care visits, clinics can conduct screening at any visit and use self-administered screening tools to increase the detection of unhealthy alcohol use among adult patients., Importance Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations. Objective To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)–integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93 114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021. Interventions Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script. Results Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948

Background This study sought to assess the magnitude of and factors associated with mental health outcomes among frontline health care workers (FHCWs) providing care during the Spring 2020 COVID-19 pandemic surge in New York City. Methods A cross-sectional, survey-based study over 4 weeks during the Spring 2020 pandemic surge was used to assess symptoms of COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in 2,579 FHCWs at the Mount Sinai Hospital. Participants were additionally asked about their occupational and personal exposures to COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression and relative importance analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with these outcomes. Results A total of 3,360 of 6,026 individuals completed the survey (55.8% participation), with 2,579 (76.8%) analyzed based on endorsing frontline responsibilities and providing information related to the three outcomes. 1,005 (39.0%) met criteria for symptoms of COVID-19-related PTSD, MDD, or GAD. 599 (23.3%) screened positively for PTSD symptoms, 683 (26.6%) for MDD symptoms, and 642 (25.0%) for GAD symptoms. Multivariable analyses revealed that past-year burnout was associated with the highest risk of developing symptoms for COVID-19-related PTSD (odds ratio [OR] = 2.10), MDD (OR = 2.83), and GAD (OR = 2.68). Higher perceived support from hospital leadership was associated with a lowest risk of all outcomes [PTSD (OR = 0.75), MDD (OR = 0.72), and GAD (OR = 0.76). Conclusion In this large sample of FHCWs providing care during the 2020 NYC pandemic surge, 39% experienced symptoms of COVID-19-related PTSD, MDD, and/or GAD and pre-pandemic burnout as well as leadership support were identified as the most highly associated factors. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing burnout and augmenting support from hospital leadership may be appropriate targets to mitigate the risk for developing further psychopathology in this population and others working in the midst of crisis.

Background In a large statewide initiative, New York State implemented collaborative care (CC) from 2012 to 2014 in 32 primary care settings where residents were trained and supported its sustainability through payment reforms implemented in 2015. Twenty-six clinics entered the sustainability phase and six opted out, providing an opportunity to examine factors predicting continued CC participation and fidelity. Methods We used descriptive statistics to assess implementation metrics in sustaining vs. opt-out clinics and trends in implementation fidelity 1 and 2 years into the sustainability phase among sustaining clinics. To characterize barriers and facilitators, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists, clinic administrators, primary care physicians, and depression care managers (24 at sustaining, 7 at opt-out clinics). Results At the end of the implementation phase, clinics opting to continue the program had significantly higher care manager full-time equivalents (FTEs) and achieved greater clinical improvement rates (46% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.004) than opt-out clinics. At 1 and 2 years into sustainability, the 26 sustaining clinics had steady rates of depression screening, staffing FTEs and treatment titration rates, significantly higher contacts/patient and improvement rates and fewer enrolled patients/FTE. During the sustainability phase, opt-out sites reported lower patient caseloads/FTE, psychiatry and care manager FTEs, and physician/psychiatrist CC involvement compared to sustaining clinics. Key barriers to sustainability noted by respondents included time/resources/personnel (71% of respondents from sustaining clinics vs. 86% from opt-out), patient engagement (67% vs. 43%), and staff/provider engagement (50% vs. 43%). Fewer respondents mentioned early implementation barriers such as leadership support, training, finance, and screening/referral logistics. Facilitators included engaging patients (e.g., warm handoffs) (79% vs. 86%) and staff/providers (71% vs. 100%), and hiring personnel (75% vs. 57%), particularly paraprofessionals for administrative tasks (67% vs. 0%). Conclusions Clinics that saw early clinical improvement and who invested in staffing FTEs were more likely to elect to enter the sustainability phase. Structural rules (e.g., payment reform) both encouraged participation in the sustainability phase and boosted long-term outcomes. While limited to settings with academic affiliations, these results demonstrate that patient and provider engagement and care manager resources are critical factors to ensuring sustainability. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0818-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Depression is common in patients attending primary care clinics especially for those in socioeconomically disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. A number of behavioral health collaborative care models exist to screen, assess, and treat patients within primary care clinics. This paper discusses the implementation of a behavioral health care program using the Improving Mood Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) model within an urban primary care clinic setting in New York City, that serves a large population of ethnically diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. While elements of the structured IMPACT model in the clinic were effective, the therapeutic approaches did not always meet the needs of all the patients. Therefore, the article describes the challenges this program faced and highlights how the IMPACT model was modified to meet the specific needs of the patients by using an adapted version of Interpersonal Psychotherapy as an alternative psychosocial intervention to the traditional Problem Solving Treatment psychosocial treatment in IMPACT.

Background Communication and courtesy are important elements of consultations, but there is limited published data about the quality of trainee consults. Objectives This study assessed residents' views on consult interactions, evaluated the impact of the consult interactions on patient care, and developed and implemented a pocket card and training on trainee consults. Methods We surveyed resident and fellow physicians at Mount Sinai Hospital to assess perceptions, created a CONSULT card that uses a mnemonic for key elements, and developed a training session for how to call consults. We also conducted a consult training session using the CONSULT card as part of orientation in 2011 for all interns. We assessed the acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability of this intervention. Results Of 1001 trainees, 403 (40%) responded. Respondents reported that the most important components of calling consults included giving patient name, medical record number, and location (91%), and giving a clear question/reason (89%). Respondents also reported that these behaviors are done consistently for only 64%, and 10% of consults, respectively. Trainees reported that consult interactions affect the timeliness of treatment (62%), timeliness of tests performed (57%), appropriateness of diagnosis (56%), and discharge planning (49%). Approximately 300 interns attended the consult training session, and their feedback demonstrated acceptability and utility of the session. Conclusions Trainees believe that consult interactions impact patient care, but important components of the consult call are often missing. Our training and CONSULT card is an acceptable, feasible, and novel training intervention. Once developed, the training session and CONSULT card require minimal faculty time to deliver.

Background Alcohol and drug use are leading causes of morbidity and mortality that frequently go unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, we interviewed key clinical stakeholders to identify current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for its implementation. Methods Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including patients, primary care providers (faculty and resident physicians), nurses, and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework, which guides the implementation of new clinical practices (Graham et al. in J Contin Educ Health Prof 26(1):13–24, 2006). Results Factors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants consistently agreed that having knowledge of a patient’s substance use is important because of its impacts on health and medical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings currently, and that universal screening is the best approach. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about consequences of disclosing substance use, confidentiality, and the individual’s own reluctance to acknowledge a substance use problem. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of clinical knowledge and training, as well as systems-level factors including time pressure, resources, lack of space, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. Adapting to the local context: Most patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. Opinions diverged regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening, although most preferred a patient self-administered approach. Many providers reported that taking effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. Conclusions Participants expressed support for substance use screening as a valuable part of medical care, and identified individual-level as well as systems-level barriers to its implementation. These findings suggest that screening programs should clearly communicate the goals of screening to patients and proactively counteract stigma, address staff concerns regarding time and workflow, and provide education as well as treatment resources to primary care providers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.

With growing numbers of patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations, and the potential implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the provision of primary care in the United States is expanding and changing. Therefore, there is an urgent need to create more primary-care physicians and to train physicians to practice in this environment. In this article, we review the impact that the changing US healthcare system has on trainees, strategies to recruit and retain medical students and residents into primary-care internal medicine, and the preparation of trainees to work in the changing healthcare system. Recruitment methods for medical students include early preclinical exposure to patients in the primary-care setting, enhanced longitudinal patient experiences in clinical clerkships, and primary-care tracks. Recruitment methods for residents include enhanced ambulatory-care training and primary-care programs. Financial-incentive programs such as loan forgiveness may encourage trainees to enter primary care. Retaining residents in primary-care careers may be encouraged via focused postgraduate fellowships or continuing medical education to prepare primary-care physicians as both teachers and practitioners in the changing environment. Finally, to prepare primary-care trainees to effectively and efficiently practice within the changing system, educators should consider shifting ambulatory training to community-based practices, encouraging resident participation in team-based care, providing interprofessional educational experiences, and involving trainees in quality-improvement initiatives. Medical educators in primary care must think innovatively and collaboratively to effectively recruit and train the future generation of primary-care physicians.

The quality of the continuity clinic experience for internal medicine (IM) residents may influence their choice to enter general internal medicine (GIM), yet few data exist to support this hypothesis.To assess the relationship between IM residents' satisfaction with continuity clinic and interest in GIM careers.Cross-sectional survey assessing satisfaction with elements of continuity clinic and residents' likelihood of career choice in GIM.IM residents at three urban medical centers.Bivariate and multivariate associations between satisfaction with 32 elements of outpatient clinic in 6 domains (clinical preceptors, educational environment, ancillary staff, time management, administrative, personal experience) and likelihood of considering a GIM career.Of the 225 (90 %) residents who completed surveys, 48 % planned to enter GIM before beginning their continuity clinic, whereas only 38 % did as a result of continuity clinic. Comparing residents' likelihood to enter GIM as a result of clinic to likelihood to enter a career in GIM before clinic showed that 59 % of residents had no difference in likelihood, 28 % reported a lower likelihood as a result of clinic, and 11 % reported higher likelihood as a result of clinic. Most residents were very satisfied or satisfied with all clinic elements. Significantly more residents (p ≤ 0.002) were likely vs. unlikely to enter GIM if they were very satisfied with faculty mentorship (76 % vs. 53 %), time for appointments (28 % vs. 11 %), number of patients seen (33 % vs. 15 %), personal reward from work (51 % vs. 23 %), relationship with patients (64 % vs. 42 %), and continuity with patients (57 % vs. 33 %). In the multivariate analysis, being likely to enter GIM before clinic (OR 29.0, 95 % CI 24.0-34.8) and being very satisfied with the continuity of relationships with patients (OR 4.08, 95 % CI 2.50-6.64) were the strongest independent predictors of likelihood to enter GIM as a result of clinic.Resident satisfaction with most aspects of continuity clinic was high; yet, continuity clinic had an overall negative influence on residents' attitudes toward GIM careers. Targeting resources toward improving ambulatory patient continuity, workflow efficiency and increasing pre-residency interest in primary care may help build the primary care workforce.

BACKGROUND: Residents are often dissatisfied with feedback received on the wards, and hospital attendings are often uncomfortable and unskilled at giving feedback. OBJECTIVE: Determine the impact of a pocket card and feedback session on Internal Medicine (IM) residents' perceptions of feedback and attendings' comfort giving feedback. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial using chi-square analysis. SETTING: Inpatient wards at 1 academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eleven IM residents and 36 attendings. INTERVENTION: We introduced a pocket feedback card, structured around the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies, and a feedback session to guide mid-rotation feedback. Control group attendings received the usual reminder to provide feedback. MEASUREMENTS: Attendings' and residents' survey responses, after the inpatient month, assessing attitudes towards feedback and qualitative interviews with intervention attendings. RESULTS: Intervention residents were more likely than controls to report sufficient and useful feedback from attendings. They reported more feedback regarding skills needing improvement and how to improve their skills (51.3% vs 25.5%, P = 0.02), and felt their clinical (61.5% vs 27.8%, P = 0.001) and professionalism/communication (51.3% vs 29.1%, P = 0.03) skills improved based on this feedback. Intervention attendings, as compared to controls, agreed that residents improved their professionalism/communication skills (76.9% vs 31.1%, P = 0.02) based on feedback. Most intervention attendings found the card and session acceptable and would use both in the future. CONCLUSIONS: A pocket feedback card and dedicated feedback session improved the quantity and quality of feedback delivered to IM residents by their attendings on the inpatient wards. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011;. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine