The stress of metropolitan general practice

Peter L Schattner and Greg J Coman

MJA 1998; 169: 133-137
For editorial comment, see Douglas & Sibthorpe
 

Abstract - Introduction - Methods - Results - Sex differences - Discussion - Acknowledgements - References - Authors' details
Make a comment - Register to be notified of new articles by e-mail - Current contents list - ©MJA1998

Abstract	Objective: To identify the work-related stressors of Australian metropolitan general practitioners (GPs). Design and setting: A descriptive postal survey of metropolitan GPs from all States and Territories selected at random from the Health Insurance Commission database. Participants: 296 of 464 GPs (64%) surveyed in June 1996; 67% were male; 87% worked full-time (more than 6 sessions per week). Main outcome measures: Frequency and severity of work stresssors in general practice; overall feelings of stress at work in the past 12 months; effects of the stressors on work satisfaction; contribution of work stress to overall life stress; responses to the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) as potential correlates of occupational stress. Results: "Time pressure to see patients" was the most frequently reported stressor. Threat of litigation was perceived as the most severe stressor. Of the top 10 severe stressors, seven were also in the top 10 for stressor frequency. Work was the major stressor in GPs' lives. The GHQ scores did not correlate significantly with major stress outcome measures, but 12.8% of GPs had scores indicative of severe psychiatric disturbance. Fifty per cent of respondents had considered leaving their current workplace and 53% had considered abandoning general practice because of occupational stress. GPs working 6 or more sessions per week were more likely to be moderately or severely stressed than those working part-time (P < 0.02, Fisher's exact test). Those who had considered leaving their current workplace or careers were also more likely to be moderately or severely stressed (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). Conclusions: The most frequent and relatively severe stressful events in general practice involved time pressures. There are implications for government, which, through remuneration policies, might influence GPs to work at a rate beyond their capacity to cope. Strategies are required to manage or prevent stress in metropolitan GPs.
Introduction	Stress has been defined as a response to challenging events.1 It is usually thought of as "distress" or an inability to cope with an external factor (the "stressor"). In the workplace it is generally referred to as occupational stress. Australian and international studies suggest that general practice is a stressful occupation.2-7 The extent to which GPs feel stressed by various aspects of their occupation may affect the quality of patient care and may also affect practitioners' health. Health problems experienced by GPs include alcohol and drug abuse,8-10 marital disruption and divorce,3,11,12 anxiety,3,13 burnout,14 depression,15 as well as suicide and attempted suicide.16,17 The specific characteristics that make general practice so stressful are largely unknown, although anecdotal evidence would suggest that time and financial issues are major stress factors for Australian GPs. In our study we aimed to identify the sources, frequency and severity of occupational stress experienced by metropolitan GPs; the importance of occupational stress compared with other life stressors; the effects of the work stressors on GPs' job satisfaction; and the possible effects of these stressors on GPs' psychological health. Rural GPs were not included, as factors such as isolation and difficulty in obtaining locum relief suggest this group should be studied separately.18
Methods
General practitioner recruitment and survey distribution	A list of 500 potential survey participants was obtained from the Health Insurance Commission database of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health (now the Department of Health and Family Services). Potential participants were randomly selected from the population of GPs in all States and Territories who had capital city practices only and more than 1500 consultations annually (the number generally accepted by the General Practice Evaluation Programme as the definition of "active" GPs). The Department advised that potential participants had not recently been surveyed through this database. Questionnaires were mailed to all 500 GPs in June 1996. Non-respondents to the first mailout were sent a second questionnaire in July 1996, and non-respondents to this prompter were telephoned to request their participation in August 1996.
Survey instrument	We used a four-part questionnaire to collect data on:(1) GPs' demographic and practice information. (2) The frequency and severity of potentially stressful events in general practice, using a 28-item list developed from an extensive literature review which included validated stress-screening instruments,4,5,6,18 and input from a Melbourne-based GP focus group. A four-point Likert-like scale was used, with 3 representing "frequently, at least weekly"; 2, "occasionally, at least monthly"; 1, "rarely, a few times a year"; and 0, "does not occur". Another four-point Likert-like scale, with 3 representing "severe stress"; 2, "moderate stress"; 1, "mild stress"; and 0, "no stress", was used to assess stress severity for each item. (3) The effects of stressors on GPs' job satisfaction, including asking them to (a) indicate on a four-point scale (from 0 = none to 4 = severe) their overall work stress levels in the previous 12 months; (b) rank six aspects of general practice in order of contribution to work stress levels, from 1 for the greatest contribution to 6 for the least; (c) distinguish between stressors related to job content (ie, clinical duties) and job context (ie, environmental and organisational factors) (see Box 1); (d) rank six potential sources of life stress in order from 1 for the greatest source of stress to 6 for the least stressful. (4) The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ),19 used to determine the presence of psychiatric disturbance, anxiety or depression as potential correlates of occupational stress. GHQ items have four response options, which were scored 0, 0, 1 or 1. This provides a GHQ score range from 0 to 12. Using this method, scores of less than four represent negligible psychiatric disturbance, scores between four and eight suggest moderate disturbance, and scores greater than eight indicate severe psychiatric disturbance.
Data entry and analysis	Data were computer-coded and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows.20 Analyses included cross-tabulations of stress outcome measures with the demographic data shown in Box 2. Non-parametric tests were used to test for significant differences at the P = 0.05 level. Potential work stressors were ranked in order of reported frequency and severity.
Ethical approval	Ethical approval was granted by the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research on Humans.
Results
Characteristics of respondents	Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 36 were returned unopened; 296 of the remaining 464 GPs participated (response rate, 64%). Box 2 shows their demographic characteristics, which are similar to the demographic profile of Australian metropolitan general practice.21
General practice stressors	Frequency of general practice stressors The most frequent stressors were related to perceived lack of time. "Time pressure to see patients", "phone interruptions during consultations" and "too much work to do in a limited time" were ranked 1, 3 and 4, respectively, in frequency, with "paperwork" the second most frequent stressor (Box 3). Severity of general practice stressors The threat of litigation (actual involvement in litigation proceedings was not an item), although perceived as one of the most stressful events in general practice, was reported relatively infrequently. However, seven of the 10 most stressful events (Box 4) were also in the top 10 for frequency. The GPs appeared to experience a number of stressors which were perceived as mild to moderate, but which occurred frequently. The mean ratings for the three most severe stressors -- "threat of litigation", "too much work to do in a limited time" and "earning enough money in general practice" -- were between "mild" and "moderate".
Effects of stress	Overall work stress The Figure shows that most GPs (273/296; 92%) reported some feelings of stress, with 241 (81%) labelling it "mild" or "moderate" and 32 (10.8%) "severe". When asked about levels of stress in the past 12 months, 121 (41%) of GPs said they had increased, 118 (40%) said they had stayed the same, and 33 (11%) said they had decreased. Fifty per cent of GPs surveyed had considered leaving their current workplace, and 157 (53%) had considered abandoning general practice because of occupational stress. Factors associated with high overall work stress levels When the GPs' reported experience of work stress was cross-tabulated with the demographic variables reported in Box 2, the only significant association was that GPs working six or more sessions per week were more likely to be moderately or severely stressed than those working part-time (P < 0.02, Fisher's exact test). Those who had considered leaving their current workplace or abandoning their careers were also more likely to be moderately or severely stressed (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). Six major causes of occupational stress Of the six most stressful aspects of general practice high workload was rated worst, followed, in descending order, by economic factors (income, running a business) and "medicopolitical" factors (involvement with professional associations, government pressures). Clinical factors and the effect of work on outside life were rated fourth and fifth, respectively, and the physical working environment was considered the dimension which contributed the least to the stresses of general practice (Box 5). These rankings were based on the means of rank scores; the first two items ranked significantly ahead of the other factors (P < 0.05). Sixty per cent of the GPs said that their experience of stress arose mainly from "job context" rather than from "job content". Comparisons with other life stresses Work was the major source of overall stress in GPs' lives, followed closely by financial concerns (Box 6).
General Health Questionnaire data	The 12-item GHQ was used to assess respondents' levels of psychiatric morbidity, especially depression and anxiety. The mean GHQ score was 3.01 (95% confidence interval, 2.66-3.35), suggesting that, on average, GPs experience low levels of psychiatric disturbance. However, almost a third (30.7%) of respondents recorded GHQ scores of 4 or more and 38 (12.8%) recorded scores of 8 or more, suggesting that many GPs are clinically depressed, anxious, or experiencing other psychiatric symptoms. The responses to three GHQ questions were of concern. These were Item 5 ("Have you recently felt constantly under strain?"), to which 7.1% responded "much more than usual"; Item 9 ("Have you recently been feeling unhappy and depressed?"), to which 5.1% responded "much more than usual"; and Item 11 ("Have you recently been thinking of yourself as a worthwhile person?"), to which 6.1% responded "not at all". Box 7 shows that, while significant, correlations between GHQ scores and the stress measures were not high. The highest correlation (0.53) was with GPs' overall perception of stress in the past 12 months.
Sex differences	There were small but statistically insignificant differences in the responses of men and women.
Discussion	Our study indicates that, while the worst stressors in general practice are perceived to be of only mild to moderate severity, many occur frequently. The study cannot determine whether there is a cumulative effect, in which a series of minor frustrations leads to a pervasive level of significant stress in GPs, but this may be an explanation as to why so many GPs have considered leaving their practices or abandoning general practice altogether. Apart from the threat of litigation, work overload issues, such as time pressure to see patients, phone interruptions and too much work to do in a limited time, were the most common stressors for GPs. Both GPs and their patients have been reported to be dissatisfied with the amount of time spent in consultations.4,7,22-25 Time pressure may be a reason for patients' reporting that GPs are not listening to what they are saying and not explaining things to them properly.26 Effects of time constraints on GPs may include irritability, frustration and, possibly, mistakes in diagnosis and treatment.4 Practice administration issues, which have not been traditionally taught to undergraduates, were rated as causing much more stress than issues of clinical competence. This may add to the pressure of high patient loads. The intrusion of work on family life was a significant stressor. Presumably, GPs would be less stressed if work did not impinge on family time or if they could see more of their family by working fewer hours. Although our list of potential sources of life stress was not exhaustive, we have not found a similar ranking attempt in the other stress studies reviewed. It would be interesting to see how this group of GPs compares with other occupational groups and the community at large in this regard. Concerns about remuneration and other financial concerns, such as the cost of practice overheads, were considered to be among the most frequent and severe stressors in this study (although they were not rated as highly as some might expect). This should be of interest to governments, which continue to emphasise cost-cutting in healthcare expenditure. It is of concern that almost a third of the respondents (91; 30.7%) had GHQ scores of 4 or more, suggesting moderate psychiatric disturbance, and that 38 (12.8%) scored 8 or more, suggesting severe disturbance. To some extent this is an independent finding; work stress cannot be blamed entirely for the presence of psychiatric disturbance in GPs, although it is likely to be a contributing factor. Our 64% response rate and the similarity of our sample's demographic profile to that of Australian metropolitan general practice21 suggest that the survey results are generalisable to urban GPs. It is possible that highly stressed GPs are under-represented because they were too stressed to comply with yet another demand on their time (the completion of a questionnaire). General practice may be no more or less stressful than many other "caring professions".4 However, the specific stressors highlighted in this study do suggest that government, healthcare policymakers, organisers of vocational training and GPs themselves should be aware of the high levels of stress experienced by doctors who choose this vocation, and steps should be taken to institute stress prevention and management.
Acknowledgements	Our thanks to the administrative staff at the Department of Community Medicine and General Practice at Monash University, as well as Dr Lynne Ham and Dr Chris Peterson for their expert advice on occupational stress, and Dr Con Tsalamandris for statistical analysis. This project was funded by a grant from the General Practice Evaluation Program of the Department of Human Services and Health.
References	Selye H. The stress of life. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. Mawardi B. Satisfactions, dissatisfactions and causes of stress in medical practice. JAMA 1979; 241: 1483-1486. Roeske N. Stress and the physician. Psychiatr Ann 1981; 11: 245-258. Porter A, Howie J, Levinson A. Stress and the general practitioner. In: Payne R, Firth-Cozens J, editors. Stress in health professionals. Chichester: Wiley, 1987: 45-70. Makin P, Rout U, Cooper C. Job satisfaction and occupational stress among general practitioners -- a pilot study. J R Coll Gen Pract 1988; 38: 303-306. Sutherland V, Cooper C. Job stress, satisfaction and mental health among general practitioners before and after introduction of new contract. BMJ 1992; 304: 1545-1548. Sutherland V, Cooper C. Identifying distress among general practitioners: predictors of psychological ill health and job dissatisfaction. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 575-581. Ball J. Alcohol and drug use and related problems in the medical profession. Aust Drug Alcohol Rev 1986; 5: 29-32. Baldwin D, Hughes P, Conrad S, et al. Substance abuse among senior medical students. JAMA 1991; 265: 2074-2078. Serry N, Bloch S, Ball R, Anderson K. Drug and alcohol abuse by doctors. Med J Aust 1994; 160: 402-407. Bird H. The physician's marriage: joys and sorrows: life transition points. Facets 1979; Summer: 18-20. Miles J, Krell R, Lin T. The doctor's wife: mental illness and marital pattern. Int J Psychiatry Med 1975; 6: 481-487. Cramond W. Anxiety in medical practice: the doctor's own anxiety. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1969; 3: 324-328. Lemkau J, Purdy R, Rafferty J, Rudisill J. Correlates of burnout among family practice residents. J Med Educ 1988; 63: 682-691. Smith M, Andrasik F, Quinn S. Stressors and psychological symptoms of family practice residents and spouses. J Med Educ 1988; 63: 397-405. Craig A, Pitts F. Suicide by physicians. Dis Nerv Syst 1968; 219: 763-772. Steppacher R, Mausner J. Suicide in male and female physicians. JAMA 1974; 228: 323-328. Dua J. Development of a scale to assess occupational stress in rural general practitioners. Int J Stress Manage 1996; 3: 117-128. Goldberg D, Williams P. Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor (UK): Nfer-Nelson, 1988. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [computer program] release 6.0. SPSS, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1996. Commonwealth Department of Health and Human Services. General practice in Australia: 1996. Canberra: AGPS, 1996. Cartwright A, Anderson R. General practice revisited. London: Tavistock, 1981. Bates E. Doctors and their spouses speak: stress in medical practice. Sociol Health Illness 1982; 4: 25-39. Richardson IM, Howie J, Durno D, et al. A study of general practitioner consultations in North-East Scotland. J R Coll Gen Pract 1973; 23: 132-142. Brooks M, Stewart-Weeks M. Integrating consumer views about quality in general practice. Canberra: Consumers' Health Forum of Australia, 1996. Myerson S. Doctors' methods of dealing with "on going" stress in general practice. Med Sci Res 1991; 19: 267-269. (Received 7 Oct 1997, accepted 31 Mar 1998)

Authors' details

Reprints will not be available from the authors.
Correspondence: Dr P L Schattner, Department of Community Medicine and General Practice, Monash University, 867 Centre Road, East Bentleigh, Melbourne, VIC 3165.
E-mail: peter.schattnerATmed.monash.edu.au