Productivity Benchmarking and Burnout in Psychosocial Oncology: Creating a Sustainable Care Model

Abstract

Objective: Psychosocial oncology specialists in academic medical centers are at risk for burnout as they deliver a wide range of clinical, research, educational, and administrative services in high demand work environments. No national productivity benchmarks exist for this specialty. This study examines factors contributing to burnout among academic psychosocial oncology psychologists (PSOP), presents viable productivity standards, and a sustainable care model to mitigate burnout. Methods: Psychosocial oncology specialists recruited from the American Psychosocial Oncology Society membership were surveyed to determine frequency of burnout as measured by the Mini Z, professional fulfillment via the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, as well as demographic, clinical practice, and systems predictors of burnout. We examine salary discrepancies by gender and race. We focus on psychologists providing services in academic medical centers. Results: Burnout was reported by 37%–44% of psychologists and was associated with high clinical volumes, mid-career status, and less than 10% administrative time. There were no differences in burnout by gender or race. However, females earned significantly less than men at each academic rank. Conclusions: PSOP report high levels of burnout consistent with other oncology professionals. Critical predictors include patient volume and lack of administrative time. Mid-career providers are more vulnerable to burnout, suggesting an inflection point at which individuals may be more likely to leave the field. We recommend a benchmark for clinical volume and sufficient administrative time to support the tripartite mission (education, research, patient care) and quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, cost, worker well-being) of academic medical centers.