Search

Objectives: The third annual Cardiovascular Diseases (CV) Fellowship Program Directors (PDs) Survey sought to understand burnout and well-being among CV fellowship PDs., Background: Physician burnout is a common phenomenon. Data on burnout among cardiologists, specifically CV PDs, remain limited., Methods: The survey contained 8 questions examining satisfaction, stress, and burnout among CV fellowship PDs. Burnout was defined based on the self-reported presence of ≥1 symptom of burnout, constant feelings of burnout, or complete burnout., Results: Survey response rate was 57%. Most respondents were men (78%) and 54% represented university-based programs. Eighty percent reported satisfaction with their current job as PD, and 96% identified interactions with fellows as a driver of their satisfaction. Forty-five percent reported feeling a great deal of stress from their job. Stress was higher among women PDs, early-career PDs, and PDs of larger and university-based programs. Twenty-one percent reported some symptoms of burnout, and only 36% reported enjoyment without stress or burnout. Rates of enjoyment without stress or burnout were higher among men and late-career PDs, PDs of smaller programs, and PDs of community-based programs. Seventeen percent of PDs reported a high likelihood of resigning in the next year, of which the most common reason was the tasks of PDs were becoming overwhelming., Conclusions: Most CV fellowship PDs are satisfied with their position, but stress and burnout remain common. Women PDs, early-career PDs, and PDs of larger, university-based programs demonstrate more adverse markers of well-being. Opportunities exist to support CV fellowship PDs in their critical role., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Mr. Theriot is a paid employee of the American College of Cardiology. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Women and minorities are under-represented in cardiovascular disease (CVD) specialties. It remains unknown how characteristics of the CVD learning environment affect diversity and how program directors (PDs) approach these critical issues., Objectives: The second annual Cardiovascular PD Survey aimed to investigate characteristics of the CVD learning environment that may affect diversity and strategies PDs use to approach these issues., Methods: The survey contained 20 questions examining U.S.-based CVD PD perceptions of diversity in CVD and related characteristics of the CVD fellowship learning environment., Results: In total, 58% of PDs completed the survey. Responding programs demonstrated geographic diversity. The majority were university-based or -affiliated. A total of 86% of PDs felt diversity in CVD as a field needs to increase, and 70% agreed that training programs could play a significant role in this. In total, 89% of PDs have attempted to increase diversity in fellowship recruitment. The specific strategies used were associated with PD sex and the presence of under-represented minority trainees in the program. PDs identified lack of qualified candidates and overall culture of cardiology as the 2 most significant barriers to augmenting diversity. A majority of programs have support systems in place for minority fellows or specific gender groups, including procedures to report issues of harassment or an unsafe learning environment. PDs identified shared best practices for recruitment and implicit bias training, among others, as important resources in their efforts to support diversity in CVD training., Conclusions: Diversity is important to CVD PDs. They are striving to increase it in their programs through recruitment and strategies directed toward the fellowship learning environment. The CVD community has opportunities to standardize strategies and provide national resources to support PDs in these critical efforts., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)