Background and Objectives: Burnout rates among American physicians and trainees are high. The objectives of this study were: (1) to compare burnout rates among residents and faculty members of the graduate medical education (GME) programs sponsored by the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (KUSM-W) to previously published data, and (2) to evaluate the physicians’ feedback on perceived causes and activities to promote wellness. Methods: Between April and May 2017, we surveyed 439 residents and core faculty members from 13 residency programs sponsored by the KUSM-W. The survey included the Abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory, two open-ended questions, and demographic questions. The authors used Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests to analyze the quantitative data, and an immersion-crystallization approach to analyze the open-ended data. Results: Forty-three percent of all respondents met the criteria for burnout, and the overall response rate was 50%. When compared with core faculty members, rates of burnout among residents were higher (51% vs 31%, P<.05). The immersion-crystallization approach revealed five interconnected themes as possible causes of burnout among physicians: work-life imbalance, system issues, poor morale, difficult patient populations, and unrealistic expectations. Promotion of healthy and mindfulness activities; enhanced program leadership; and administration, program, and system modification were identified as activities/resources that can promote wellness among physicians. Conclusions: The findings show that burnout is prevalent among physicians within GME. Wellness and burnout prevention should be addressed at the beginning of medical training and longitudinally. Potential intervention should include activities that allow physicians to thrive in the health care environment.

BackgroundThe student costs of residency interviewing are of increasing concern but limited current information is available. Updated, more detailed information would assist students and residency programs in decisions about residency selection. The study objective was to measure the expenses and time spent in residency interviewing by the 2016 graduating class of the University of Kansas School of Medicine and assess the impact of gender, regional campus location, and primary care application.MethodsAll 195 students who participated in the 2016 National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) received a 33 item questionnaire addressing interviewing activity, expenses incurred, time invested and related factors. Main measures were self-reported estimates of expenses and time spent interviewing. Descriptive analyses were applied to participant characteristics and responses. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and chi-square tests compared students by gender, campus (main/regional), and primary care/other specialties. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) on the dependent variables provided follow-up tests on significant MANOVA results.ResultsA total of 163 students (84%) completed the survey. The average student reported 38 (1–124) applications, 16 (1–54) invitations, 11 (1–28) completed interviews, and spent $3,500 ($20–$12,000) and 26 (1–90) days interviewing. No significant differences were found by gender. After MANOVA and ANOVA analyses, non-primary care applicants reported significantly more applications, interviews, and expenditures, but less program financial support. Regional campus students reported significantly fewer invitations, interviews, and days interviewing, but equivalent costs when controlled for primary care application. Cost was a limiting factor in accepting interviews for 63% and time for 53% of study respondents.ConclusionsStudents reported investing significant time and money in interviewing. After controlling for other variables, primary care was associated with significantly lowered expenses. Regional campus location was associated with fewer interviews and less time interviewing. Gender had no significant impact on any aspect studied.

Background and Objectives: Resident recruitment is one of the most important responsibilities of residency programs. Resource demands are among the principal reasons for calls for recruitment reform. The purpose of this study was to provide a national snapshot of estimated costs of recruitment among US family medicine programs. The aim was to provide data to assist programs in securing and allocating resources to manage the increasingly challenging recruitment process. Methods: Questions were part of a larger omnibus survey conducted by the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) Educational Research Alliance (CERA). Specific questions were asked regarding how many interviews each program offered and completed; interview budget; additional funds spent on recruitment; reimbursements; and resident, faculty, and staff hours used per interviewee. Results: The response rate was 53% (277/522). Program directors estimated that residents devoted 6.4 hours (95% CI 6, 7) to each interview, faculty 5.6 hours (95% CI 5, 6), and staff 4.4 hours (95% CI 4, 5). The average budget for interviewing per program was $17,079 (±$19,474) with an additional $8,274 (±$9,615) spent on recruitment activities. The average amount spent per applicant was $213 (±$360), with $111 (±$237) in additional funds used for recruitment. Programs were more likely to pay for interviewee meals (82%) and lodging (59%) than travel (3%). Conclusions: As individual programs face increasing pressure to demonstrate value for investment in recruiting, data generated by this national survey enables useful comparison to individual programs and sponsoring organizations. Results may also contribute to national discussions about best practices in resident recruitment and ways to improve efficiency of the process.

No abstract

US medical school graduates-65 more than in 2007-chose family medicine for their careers, and 2,404 of 2,654 family medicine residency positions were taken, for a fi ll rate of nearly 91%.