4.7 Article

A Workforce Survey on Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 141, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2017-2164

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Developmental-behavioral conditions are common, affecting similar to 15% of US children. The prevalence and complexity of these conditions are increasing despite long wait times and a limited pipeline of new providers. We surveyed a convenience sample of the developmental-behavioral pediatric (DBP) workforce to determine current practices, workforce trends, and future needs. METHODS: An electronic survey was e-mailed to 1568 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and Council on Children with Disabilities, the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Developmental and Behavioral Mental Health Special Interest Group. RESULTS: The response rate was 48%. There were 411 fellowship-trained physicians, 147 nonfellowship-trained physicians, and 125 nurse practitioners; 61% were women, 79% were white, and 5% were Hispanic. Physicians had a mean of 29 years since medical school graduation, and one-third planned to retire in 3 to 5 years. Nurse practitioners were earlier in their careers. Respondents reported long wait times for new appointments, clinician burnout, increased patient complexity and up to 50% additional time spent per visit in nonreimbursed clinical-care activities. Female subspecialists spent more time per visit in billable and nonbillable components of clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: The DBP workforce struggles to meet current service demands, with long waits for appointments, increased complexity, and high volumes of nonreimbursed care. Sexbased practice differences must be considered in future planning. The viability of the DBP subspecialty requires strategies to maintain and expand the workforce, improve clinical efficiency, and prevent burnout.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据