476 - Implementation of a Peer Support Program in a Pediatric Emergency Medicine Division

Poster Number: 476
Publication Number: 476.31

Nichole McCollum, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States; Jennifer Chapman, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC, United States; Kristen Breslin, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC, United States; Laura J. Sigman, Children's National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States; KATHLEEN M. BROWN, Children's National Health System, SILVER SPRING, MD, United States; Xian Zhao, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC, United States

Background: Clinician burnout is a growing problem in the health care system.  While the relationship between individual stressful events and clinician burnout and resilience is unclear, the impact of moral distress and trauma in the pediatric emergency department (PED) is a concern.  Peer support interventions in other settings have shown feasibility and acceptability. 

Objective: The objectives of this study are to describe the referral pattern and to determine impact of a structured peer support program in the PED. 

Design/Methods: A peer support system was established in the Division of Emergency Medicine comprised of 99 providers at an academic pediatric hospital.  Twenty peer supporters were nominated by their peers and completed a two-hour training program. Two surveys were distributed: a general survey to all pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) healthcare professionals and a specific survey for peer supporters. Follow-up surveys were sent one year later. The general survey asked about demographics, impressions of the program, utilization, and characteristics of the peer support outreach received. Peer supporters were asked about the reason for the peer support session, duration, and the impact of providing peer support on a Likert-based scale (very helpful to very harmful). Peer support referrals were tracked and categorized by referral method and reason for referral over a 16-month period.

Results: Forty-two PEM healthcare professionals (44.7%) responded to the initial survey as a participant. The majority were attendings (66.7%), 10 years or less out of training (57.1%), and female (69%). Eleven survey participants (26.3%) chose to receive support through the peer support program. Seventy-six referrals and 13 peer support sessions occurred over a 16-month period (Figure 1). The most common reason for referral was a patient death (n = 40) and the most common reason to meet for peer support was a difficult case, which includes physical or sexual assault and medical or trauma resuscitations (n = 6). Ten peer supporters (50%) reported 80% of sessions lasted less than 15 minutes, and half rated the sessions as very helpful or helpful. No peer supporter reported harm. Respondents reflected on the most and least helpful parts of the program (Table 1).

Conclusion(s): A structured, PEM-specific peer support program has good acceptability and appears helpful to both the peer supporter and the provider receiving support even in the absence of a formal peer support session. More investigation is needed to determine the impact of the program on provider resilience, recovery, and burnout.