Mittnacht Alexander J C, Garcia Carolina S Romero, Cadwell Joshua B, Huang Jiapeng, Sofjan Iwan, ElTahan Mohamed R, Liu Hong, Mukherjee Chirojit, Guarracino Fabio, Shaw Andrew, Motta Pablo
Department of Anesthesiology, New York Medical College, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY.
Universidad Europea de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2025 Aug;39(8):1930-1944. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2025.02.042. Epub 2025 Mar 4.
The primary aim of this survey was to assess the demographics, training background, practice setting, and work environment of cardiac anesthesiologists globally.
Cross-sectional study of the global cardiac anesthesia workforce. A multilingual web-based survey was conducted between June 1 and December 31, 2023.
The survey was distributed via cardiac anesthesia societies, special interest groups, and social media using a non-probabilistic sample and with snowballing techniques.
Anesthesiologists actively practicing cardiac anesthesia.
None.
In total, 3,430 participants from 99 countries responded. Results were summarized as descriptive data comparing geographical regions, and noticeable differences for individual countries were assessed. Most of the workforce (85.9%, n = 2,913/3,390) that responded to the survey were between 31 and 60 years of age. Australia/New Zealand/Oceania (51.1%, n = 48/94) and Asia (45.2%, n = 606/1,341) had the largest percentages of respondents working in the above 50 years of age group. Globally, 48.4% (n = 1,347/2,780) of respondents reported having completed an accredited adult cardiac fellowship, and 42.7% (n = 918/2,148) replied to have had only informal training "on the job." When it comes to transesophageal echocardiography, 44.6% (n = 1,240/2,780) of the global workforce reports not having had any formal training. Large differences in training background were noticed by country and region. Most of the workforce (43.3%, n = 1,149/2,652) indicated working between 41 and 60 hours per week. However, more than one of four (26.8%, n = 711/2,652) cardiac anesthesiologists work between 61 to 80 hours, and one out of ten (10.5%, n = 279/2,652) has a workload of more than 81 hours per week. A majority (68%, n = 1,778/2,609) of cardiac anesthesiologists evaluated their compensation/salary as less than adequate or just adequate but not enough to save for retirement. Regarding work-life balance, there was a significant variation in how practitioners assessed their personal situations. Almost half (46.3%, n = 1,185/2,560) of the workforce consider making changes to reduce their workload, and only 23.1% (n = 592/2,560) evaluated their work-life balance as just right. A validated, non-proprietary single-question item assessing emotional exhaustion as one of the three established criteria for burnout was incorporated into the survey. The overall prevalence of burnout, i.e. emotional exhaustion, among cardiac anesthesiologists was 31.7% (n = 827/2,609). In the regression analysis, an increase in clinical work hours (OR = 1.28; CI [1.16, 1.42]; p < 0.001), the number (OR = 1.05; CI [1.02, 1.08]; p < 0.001) and type (OR =1.09; CI [1.0, 1.19]; p = 0.03) of cardiac call, all increased the odds for burnout. Compared to taking all cardiac call in the hospital, taking no cardiac call at all, significantly decreased the risk for burnout. Similarly, compared to compensation that was perceived as less than adequate, i.e., even needing a second income, higher compensation assessment was associated with an increasingly lower risk for burnout. Other factors mitigating burnout risk include older age groups (OR = 0.78; CI [0.67, 0.90]; p < 0.001), and a more positive outlook on work-life balance (OR = 0.88; CI [0.85, 0.92]; p < 0.001). The geographical region had a small but significant association with burnout (OR 1.12; CI [1.06, 1.18]; p < 0.001). Asia, as the geographical region of practice, had the highest odds for burnout overall (41.3%, n = 342/829) and also the most respondents (15.6%, n = 129/829) in the highest answer option category, i.e., feeling completely burned out.
A global survey of the cardiac anesthesia workforce found inconsistency in the training, job satisfaction, and daily practice of cardiac anesthesiologists. The rate of burnout was high, and many respondents would like to make work-related changes to improve work-life balance.
本次调查的主要目的是评估全球心脏麻醉医生的人口统计学特征、培训背景、执业环境和工作环境。
对全球心脏麻醉医生劳动力进行横断面研究。于2023年6月1日至12月31日开展了一项基于网络的多语言调查。
该调查通过心脏麻醉学会、特殊兴趣小组和社交媒体进行分发,采用非概率抽样和滚雪球技术。
积极从事心脏麻醉工作的麻醉医生。
无。
共有来自99个国家的3430名参与者做出回应。结果以描述性数据形式总结,用于比较地理区域,并评估个别国家的显著差异。参与调查的大多数劳动力(85.9%,n = 2913/3390)年龄在31至60岁之间。澳大利亚/新西兰/大洋洲(51.1%,n = 48/94)和亚洲(45.2%,n = 606/1341)在50岁以上年龄组工作的受访者比例最高。在全球范围内,48.4%(n = 1347/2780)的受访者报告完成了经认可的成人心脏专科培训,42.7%(n = 918/2148)的受访者表示仅接受过“在职”非正式培训。在经食管超声心动图方面,全球44.6%(n = 1240/2780)的劳动力报告未接受过任何正式培训。不同国家和地区的培训背景存在很大差异。大多数劳动力(43.3%,n = 1149/2652)表示每周工作41至60小时。然而,超过四分之一(26.8%,n = 711/2652)的心脏麻醉医生每周工作61至80小时,十分之一(10.5%,n = 279/2652)的人每周工作量超过81小时。大多数(68%,n = 1778/2609)心脏麻醉医生认为他们的薪酬/薪水不足或仅勉强足够,不足以储蓄用于退休。关于工作与生活的平衡,从业者对个人情况的评估存在显著差异。几乎一半(46.3%,n = 1185/2560)的劳动力考虑做出改变以减轻工作量,只有23.1%(n = 592/2560)的人认为他们的工作与生活平衡恰到好处。一项经过验证的非专利单项问题被纳入调查,用于评估情绪耗竭,这是职业倦怠的三个既定标准之一。心脏麻醉医生中职业倦怠(即情绪耗竭)的总体患病率为31.7%(n = 827/2609)。在回归分析中,临床工作时间增加(OR = 1.28;CI [1.16, 1.42];p < 0.001)、心脏值班的次数(OR = 1.05;CI [1.02, 1.08];p < 0.001)和类型(OR = 1.09;CI [1.0, 1.19];p = 0.03)均增加了职业倦怠的几率。与在医院承担所有心脏值班相比,完全不承担心脏值班显著降低了职业倦怠的风险。同样,与被认为不足的薪酬相比,即甚至需要第二份收入,更高的薪酬评估与职业倦怠风险的降低相关。其他减轻职业倦怠风险的因素包括年龄较大的群体(OR = 0.78;CI [0.67, 0.90];p < 0.001)以及对工作与生活平衡更积极的看法(OR = 0.88;CI [0.85, 0.92];p < 0.001)。地理区域与职业倦怠有小但显著的关联(OR 1.12;CI [1.06, 1.18];p < 0.001)。作为执业地理区域,亚洲总体职业倦怠几率最高(41.3%,n = 342/829),并且在最高答案选项类别(即感觉完全倦怠)中的受访者也最多(占受访者的15.6%,n = 129/829)。
对全球心脏麻醉医生劳动力的调查发现,心脏麻醉医生在培训、工作满意度和日常实践方面存在不一致。职业倦怠率很高,许多受访者希望做出与工作相关的改变以改善工作与生活的平衡。