RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved. DESIGN: We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTION: Irrelevant. MEASUREMENT: Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.
Assuntos
COVID-19/psicologia , Cuidados Críticos/psicologia , Estresse Ocupacional , Médicos/psicologia , Angústia Psicológica , Adulto , Hotspot de Doença , Equipamentos e Provisões Hospitalares/provisão & distribuição , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , SARS-CoV-2 , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Recursos Humanos , Local de TrabalhoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Critics argue that the American Board of Internal Medicine's medical oncology Maintenance of Certification examination requires medical oncologists with a narrow scope of practice to spend time studying material that is no longer relevant to their practice. However, no data are available describing the scope of practice for medical oncologists. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we examined the scope of practice for 9,985 medical oncologists who saw 8.6 million oncology conditions in 2016, each of which was assigned to 1 of 23 different condition groups. Scope of practice was then measured as the percentage of oncology conditions within each of the 23 groups. We grouped physicians with similar scopes of practice by applying K-means clustering to the percentage of conditions seen. The scope of practice for each physician cluster was determined from the cancers that encompassed the majority of average oncology conditions seen among physicians composing the cluster. RESULTS: We found 20 distinct scope-of-practice clusters. The largest (n = 6,479 [65.5%]) had a general oncology scope of practice. The remaining physicians focused on a narrow scope of cancers, including 22.6% focused on ≥ 1 solid tumors and 11.9% focused on hematologic malignancies. The largest focused cluster accounted for 7.7% of physicians focused on breast cancer. CONCLUSION: A single American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification assessment in medical oncology is most appropriate for approximately 65% of certified medical oncologists' practices. However, the addition of assessments focused on breast cancer and hematologic malignancies could increase this figure to upwards of 85% of certified medical oncologists.