National Assessment of Workplace Bullying Among Academic Surgeons in the US | Pediatrics | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Table 1.  Experiences With and Barriers to Reporting for Personal Bullyinga
Experiences With and Barriers to Reporting for Personal Bullyinga
Table 2.  Perspectives on Institutional Environment
Perspectives on Institutional Environment
1.
Jones  JW, McCullough  LB.  Ethics of unprofessional behavior that disrupts: crossing the line.   J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(2):433-435. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.11.043PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Jones  JW, McCullough  LB, Richman  BW.  Ethics and professionalism: do we need yet another surgeons’ charter?   J Vasc Surg. 2006;44(4):903-906. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.07.028PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Osuch  JR.  Legacy of abuse in a sacred profession: another call for change.   Virtual Mentor. 2009;11(2):161-166. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2009.11.2.msoc2-0902Google Scholar
4.
Carter  M, Thompson  T, Crampton  P,  et al.  Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: a questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting.   BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002628. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002628PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Einarsen  S, Hoel  H, Notelaers  G.  Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised.   Work Stress. 2009;23(1):24-44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673Google Scholar
6.
El Ghaziri  M, Storr  CL, Simons  SR,  et al.  Comparative psychometric review of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-revised in a unionized U.S. public sector workforce.   Work. 2019;62(1):161-171. doi:10.3233/WOR-182851PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    2 Comments for this article
    Not new
    Linnea Priest, MD | retired
    Bullying by surgeons is not new, and if only 40% have witnessed it, that must be a new low. I did two residencies and one fellowship 40 years ago, and I'd say it was 100% back then. I am not going to list the many, many incidents that I witnessed, not just among surgeons. But I still remember them and consider them ACEs, in this case "Adverse Clinical Experiences".
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    Under-Reported Bullying by Surgeons
    Harald Aanning, MD | Retired general surgeon
    A surgeon's bullying might be linked to both poor surgical outcomes and an effective mechanism to cover up them up. Corollary behavior includes retaliation when threatened with exposure...

    Significantly, bullying thwarts the transparency, honesty, and hard work critical to making operations safer and more effective...

    The authors' "Work remains to be done in this field..." cannot be denied...
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    Research Letter
    April 1, 2020

    National Assessment of Workplace Bullying Among Academic Surgeons in the US

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
    • 2Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
    • 3Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
    • 4Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 5Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
    • 6Section Editor, JAMA Surgery
    JAMA Surg. 2020;155(6):524-526. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0263

    Workplace incivility is well known among surgeons; there are stories of instrument throwing, verbal tirades, and sexual harassment.1,2 Fear of humiliation and bullying is strong among medical students,3 and examples of student mistreatment almost invariably involve some surgical anecdote. These stories may reflect a specialty culture of acceptance and a code of silence that facilitate bullying at the workplace.

    There is no consensus definition of bullying, but an operational one for this study is “a situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons”4; such interactions usually involve a power differential.5,6 Not all unprofessional conduct involves bullying, and the lack of a practical standard definition has made it difficult to assess its prevalence among surgeons.

    Anecdotally, workplace bullying is a common occurrence among surgeons, but little is known about its prevalence and effect. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of bullying and barriers to its eradication among US surgeons.

    Methods

    US surgeons from 4 societies (Association for Academic Surgery [n = 2732], Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons [unknown distribution sample size], Association for Surgical Education [n = 2480], and Society of University Surgeons [n = 1235]) were invited to participate in an anonymous, online survey using the Negative Acts Questionnaire–revised (NAQ-R). The survey consisted of questions about demographics, NAQ-R, and institutional policies and perceptions. The NAQ-R is a validated instrument measuring bullying in diverse workplaces5 that consists of 22 questions about the frequency with which one personally experienced negative acts (listed as observable behaviors) using a Likert-type scale (1 indicates never; 2, now and then; 3, monthly; 4, weekly; 5, daily). In addition, this instrument also asks whether participants have witnessed others being bullied within the last 6 months. Participants are also asked about the source of bullying and barriers to reporting bullying. NAQ-R scores are presented as mean (SD). This study was approved by the institutional review board at Yale School of Medicine and deemed exempt. Participants were provided informed electronic consent. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with bullying. Data were collected from July to August 2018, and analysis began September 2018.

    Results

    Of 775 respondents, 180 (23.2%) were residents. Most faculty respondents were male (345 [58%]) and from universities (481 [81.0%]); 204 (36%) were professors. The mean (SD) NAQ-R score was 40.3 (17.8) among residents and 34.8 (14.7) among faculty (scores >34 suggest risk of bullying). Female sex was associated with being bullied after adjusting for other participant characteristics (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.70). A total of 59 residents (39.9%) and 212 faculty (40.0%) reported being bullied, and 83 residents (58.5%) and 283 faculty (54.3%) witnessed bullying. Reasons cited for bullying included stressful work, strict hierarchy, and lack of institutional policy. Barriers to reporting included negative effect on career, reputation, and additional bullying. Eight residents (20.0%) and 38 faculty (24.4%) experienced retaliation after reporting (Table 1), while 83 residents (60.6%) and 242 attending physicians (48.4%) reported no institutional policy against bullying (Table 2). Overall, 118 residents (85.5%) and 411 attending physicians (82%) valued 360° evaluations.

    Discussion

    In this study, bullying was reported to be common among participants, and most did not report to leadership fearing negative consequences. Perhaps the most important findings were the lack of reporting and the fear of retaliation. This study is limited by lack of response rate and potential for participant bias. Work remains to be done in this field and will likely take the collaborative efforts of the academic medical community to eradicate surgical workplace bullying.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Corresponding Author: Kevin Y. Pei, MD, MHSEd, Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6550 Fannin St, Ste SM1661, Houston, TX 77030 (kypei@houstonmethodist.org).

    Accepted for Publication: January 27, 2020.

    Published Online: April 1, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0263

    Author Contributions: Dr Pei had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Pei, Hafler, Alseidi, Klingensmith, Cochran.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Pei, Hafler, Slade, Cochran.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Pei, Hafler, Cochran.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Pei, Slade.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Pei, Cochran.

    Supervision: Hafler, Alseidi, Klingensmith, Cochran.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    Disclaimer: Dr Cochran is the Web and Social Media Editor of JAMA Surgery, but she was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.

    Meeting Presentation: This study was presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress; October 28, 2019; San Francisco, California.

    References
    1.
    Jones  JW, McCullough  LB.  Ethics of unprofessional behavior that disrupts: crossing the line.   J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(2):433-435. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.11.043PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Jones  JW, McCullough  LB, Richman  BW.  Ethics and professionalism: do we need yet another surgeons’ charter?   J Vasc Surg. 2006;44(4):903-906. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.07.028PubMedGoogle Scholar
    3.
    Osuch  JR.  Legacy of abuse in a sacred profession: another call for change.   Virtual Mentor. 2009;11(2):161-166. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2009.11.2.msoc2-0902Google Scholar
    4.
    Carter  M, Thompson  T, Crampton  P,  et al.  Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: a questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting.   BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002628. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002628PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Einarsen  S, Hoel  H, Notelaers  G.  Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised.   Work Stress. 2009;23(1):24-44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673Google Scholar
    6.
    El Ghaziri  M, Storr  CL, Simons  SR,  et al.  Comparative psychometric review of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-revised in a unionized U.S. public sector workforce.   Work. 2019;62(1):161-171. doi:10.3233/WOR-182851PubMedGoogle Scholar
    ×