Gone fishin'

Professional burnout is a serious problem.  Burnout is often designed as a form of job-related stress that results in physical, mental, or emotional exhaustion combined with lingering doubts about an individual's (self-reported) competence and (again, self-perceived) value of personal contributions.  Most studies suggest that professional burnout impacts approximately half of the U.S. workforce.  The percentage of burnout in some professions (notably, physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals) is considerably higher.  Physician burnout can lead to worse outcomes, higher costs, and decreased patient satisfaction with the care they receive.  More importantly, physician burnout can lead, if unrecognized, underappreciated, or untreated, to depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide.


The most frequently cited causes of physician burnout are excessive workloads, loss of autonomy, and the burdens of regulatory compliance and documentation, particularly with respect to the electronic medical record.  While there are a number of important drivers of burnout, work-life balance and the feeling of always being connected to work plays a major role in most studies across a wide range of industries, even in health care.  There is no question that technology has made our lives easier in a number of ways.  However, having a cell phone that allows us to always be available for either a quick telephone call, a text message, or an e-mail can be intrusive.


With this in mind, I recently came across a great suggestion in the magazine, The Atlantic.  The article starts with the writer's own experience of e-mailing a professor to request an interview for another upcoming article.  The writer received (almost immediately) an out-of-office response.  While many of utilize this feature to alert co-workers or colleagues that we are away from the office, this particular message was slightly different.  It read as follows:


 Thank you for your message.  Email received between [these dates] will be deleted from this server eight hours from now.  Please send your message again after [this date].


Wow!  That's perfect!  I was just having a conversation with a colleague the other day who had returned from vacation, only to find "a bazillion" unread e-mails in her Inbox.  Most of the e-mails were actually spam or what I would call "FYI" e-mails (announcing an upcoming lecture presentation or the impending release of the results from a clinical study).  Most of the e-mails did not require action on her part - she simply perused through the long list of e-mails with her finger on the delete button.  She then made a statement that I thought was profound (and one that I have made on a number of similar occasions).  "It would have been easier just to check my e-mail once a day while on vacation."


Is that what we have come to?  Is there truly no escape?  The Atlantic writer goes on to talk about a 2012 study by researchers at the University of California at Irvine that found that individuals who were prohibited from using e-mail for one week experienced significant reductions in their stress levels (as shown by their resting heart rates).  These results remind me of the time when my cell phone died on the drive down to the beach.  I had no way to check e-mail and no one at work could reach me.  It was one of the most relaxing vacations that I have ever had!


So the one counterargument to using an out-of-office message that automatically deletes your e-mails is that it will annoy the individuals that will have to e-mail you a second time.  Fair enough.  But when you realize that more than two-thirds of the e-mail you receive is "spam and noise", maybe that's not so bad.  Or better yet, just think if there was a way to see if someone was actually at work BEFORE sending an e-mail.  If we combined that feature with the automatic deletion out-of-office message above, I think we would have a winner!


We've come a long way from the days when people used to hang a sign on their office doorknob that read, Gone Fishin'.  Perhaps we should revisit that method again...