"The Negative Effects of Peer Comparison on Clinician Well-Being: New Study Sheds Light on Job Satisfaction"
Key Highlights :
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health care providers, leading to job dissatisfaction and burnout. As health care organizations strive to improve quality of care, showing people how their behavior compares to their peers is a commonly used method to improve behavior. However, questions remain about the potentially negative effects of peer comparison on the well-being of clinicians. A new study published in JAMA Network Open challenges prior findings that such feedback increases job dissatisfaction and burnout.
The study, conducted by the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, reveals fresh insights into the relationship between peer comparison and job satisfaction among clinicians. Researchers found that behavioral interventions aimed at improving performance can be designed to protect clinician job satisfaction and improve quality of care. To avoid negative impact, the research team discovered it is important for clinicians to have control over the behavior being evaluated or encouraged, such as ordering tests or whether to prescribe medication.
Lead author Jason Doctor, co-director of the Behavioral Sciences Program at the USC Schaeffer Center and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, said “Our research demonstrates that peer comparison aimed at improving performance can be designed in a manner that safeguards clinician job satisfaction. Prior findings to the contrary don't appear tied to peer comparison, but rather clinicians being measured for things they don't have full control over.”
The researchers evaluated data from their previously published research that assessed the impact of three interventions - Suggested Alternatives, Accountable Justification, and Peer Comparison - to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. In this study, they looked specifically at the data on peer comparison, where clinicians received an email informing them of their ranking, from highest to lowest, for inappropriate prescriptions compared to their peers.
The findings contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding healthcare quality improvement and clinician well-being. By better understanding behavioral interventions and developing more effective strategies, healthcare organizations can foster a sense of ownership and agency, leading to improved job satisfaction and decreased burnout rates.
Study authors emphasize the importance of methodology when conducting peer comparison intervention. They note the present study gave clinicians full agency over the outcome, kept performance private, did not restrict the number of top performers, and was successful in improving clinician behavior without lowering job satisfaction.
The research team's findings provide valuable information for health care organizations looking to improve quality of care while also protecting the well-being of clinicians. By taking into account the study's findings, health care organizations can develop more effective strategies for peer comparison interventions that will help promote job satisfaction and reduce burnout.
Jason Doctor, Study Lead Author and Co-Director, Behavioral Sciences Program, Schaeffer Center, University of Southern California University of Southern California Doctor, J. N., et al . (2023) Clinician Job Satisfaction After Peer Comparison Feedback. JAMA Network Open . doi.org10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17379 .
