Burnout Rate and Risk Factors among Anesthesiologists in the United States

Abstract

Background: Physician burnout, widespread across medicine, is linked to poorer physician quality of life and reduced quality of care. Data on prevalence of and risk factors for burnout among anesthesiologists are limited. The objective of the current study was to improve understanding of burnout in anesthesiologists, identify workplace and personal factors associated with burnout among anesthesiologists, and quantify their strength of association.

Methods: During March 2020, the authors surveyed member anesthesiologists of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey. Additional survey questions queried workplace and personal factors. The primary research question was to assess rates of high risk for burnout (scores of at least 27 on the emotional exhaustion subscale and/or at least 10 on the depersonalization subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey) and burnout syndrome (demonstrating all three burnout dimensions, consistent with the World Health Organization definition). The secondary research question was to identify associated risk factors.

Results: Of 28,677 anesthesiologists contacted, 13.6% (3,898) completed the survey; 59.2% (2,307 of 3,898) were at high risk of burnout, and 13.8% (539 of 3,898) met criteria for burnout syndrome. On multivariable analysis, perceived lack of support at work (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.5); working greater than or equal to 40 h/week (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.75); lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual status (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.63); and perceived staffing shortages (odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.76 to 2.42) were independently associated with high risk for burnout. Perceived lack of support at work (odds ratio, 10.0; 95% CI, 5.4 to 18.3) and home (odds ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.69) were most strongly associated with burnout syndrome.

Conclusions: The prevalence of burnout among anesthesiologists is high, with workplace factors weighing heavily. The authors identified risk factors for burnout, especially perceived support in the workplace, where focused interventions may be effective in reducing burnout.

Figure 1.

Burnout versus Burnout Syndrome. High risk for burnout is classified as reaching threshold levels of either emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization as described in the methods. Burnout Syndrome is a condition characterized by the dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low sense of personal accomplishment.

Figure 2.

Dimensions associated with burnout. Methodology: Risk factors were determined by multivariable logistic regression based on 3,898 anesthesiologists who completed the survey in March 2020. High risk for burnout is defined as reaching threshold levels of either emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Burnout Syndrome is a condition characterized by the dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low sense of personal accomplishment

Figure 3.

Independent risk factors associated with burnout and Burnout Syndrome. Methodology: Risk factors were determined by multivariable logistic regression based on 3,898 anesthesiologists who completed the survey in March 2020. High risk for burnout is either reaching threshold levels of emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Burnout Syndrome is a condition characterized by the dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low sense of personal accomplishment. Multivariable logistic regression analyses in A) High risk for burnout and B) Burnout Syndrome.