Background: For faculty in academic health sciences, the balance between research, education, and patient care has been impeded by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to identify personal and professional characteristics of faculty to understand the impact of the pandemic on faculty and consequent policy implications. Methods: A 93-question survey was sent to faculty at a large urban public university and medical center. Demographic, family, and academic characteristics, work distribution and productivity before and during the pandemic, stress, and self-care data information were collected. Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to identify classes of faculty sharing similar characteristics. Comparisons between latent classes were performed using analysis of variance and chi-square analyses. Results: Of 497 respondents, 60% were women. Four latent classes of faculty emerged based on six significant indicator variables. Class 1 individuals were more likely women, assistant professors, nontenured with high work and home stress; Class 2 faculty were more likely associate professors, women, tenured, who reported high home and work stress; Class 3 faculty were more likely men, professors, tenured with moderate work, but low home stress; and Class 4 faculty were more likely adjunct professors, nontenured, and had low home and work stress. Class 2 reported significantly increased administrative and clinical duties, decreased scholarly productivity, and deferred self-care. Conclusions: The pandemic has not affected faculty equally. Early and mid-career individuals were impacted negatively from increased workloads, stress, and decreased self-care. Academic leaders need to acknowledge these differences and be inclusive of faculty with different experiences when adjusting workplace or promotion policies.

This study evaluates the agreement between emergency physician (EP) assessment of diastolic dysfunction (DD) by a simplified approach using average peak mitral excursion velocity (eʹA) and an independent cardiologist’s diagnosis of DD by estimating left atrial (LA) pressure using American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines. This was a secondary analysis of 48 limited bedside echocardiograms (LBE) performed as a part of a research study of patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with elevated blood pressure but without decompensated heart failure. EPs diagnosed DD based on eʹA < 9 cm/s alone. A blinded board-certified cardiologist reviewed LBEs to estimate LA filling pressures following ASE guidelines. An unweighted kappa measure was calculated to determine agreement between EP and cardiologist. Six LBEs were deemed indeterminate by the cardiologist and excluded from the analysis. Agreement was reached in 41 out of 48 cases (85.4%). The unweighted kappa coefficient was 0.74 (95% CI 0.57–0.92). EPs identified 18 out of 20 LBEs diagnosed with diastolic dysfunction by the cardiologist. There is a good agreement between (eʹA) by EP and cardiologist interpretation of LBEs. Future studies should investigate this simplified approach as a one-step method of screening for LV diastolic dysfunction in the ED.

Background: Work and home stress, productivity, and self-care of academic medicine faculty in Spring 2021 was contrasted to faculty's experience in the Spring of 2020, both of which were relatively compared with the prepandemic period. Methods: A 93-question survey was sent to academic medicine faculty at an urban public university medical center in March 2020 and again in March 2021. Demographic, family, and academic characteristics, work distribution and productivity before and during the pandemic, perceived stress related to work and home activities, and self-care data compared with the prepandemic period were collected. Differences were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Student t -test was used for the difference in mean values, while logistic regression was used to determine predictors of work stress. Results: Two hundred thirty-one faculty completed the survey in Spring 2020 and 118 faculty responded in Spring 2021. The proportion of faculty reporting increased work and home stress decreased in Spring 2021 compared with Spring 2020. A higher proportion of women compared with men reported increased work stress in both surveys. In Spring 2021, work stress decreased significantly for men but not for women. Home stress decreased significantly for women in Spring 2021 but remained stable for the men faculty. Research productivity increased for both genders in Spring 2021, but a greater percentage of women reported disturbed sleep and diet. There were no differences in home stress levels between genders when caring for young children. Conclusions: Men faculty are more likely to adapt to the “new normal” by lowering work stressors and increasing productivity, whereas women's continued high work stress and increased productivity may occur at the expense of decreased self-care. The challenges associated with having young children continue to affect the productivity and well-being of all faculty.