PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Current research on locum tenens physicians has primarily focused on their safety, reliability, and patient outcomes, leaving a significant gap in understanding the financial implications of their employment in health systems. Amidst a persistent shortage of physicians across specialties, healthcare organizations have increasingly relied on locum tenens to meet the rising demand for clinical services. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap by evaluating the financial feasibility of employing locum tenens physicians compared to full-time anesthesiologists, given the context of growing physician shortages and increasing healthcare demands.
METHODS: We developed a Python simulation model to compare the costs of hiring locum tenens versus full-time anesthesiologists. The model inputs included hourly rates for both locum tenens and full-time anesthesiologists and the upfront hiring costs for full-time physicians. By plotting these costs against each other, the model identifies the breakeven point: the number of working hours at which the cost of employing a locum tenens physician equals that of hiring a full-time physician. Utilizing Monte Carlo simulations with data from the Northeastern United States, we assessed the variability and determined an average breakeven point across different scenarios.
RESULTS: The Monte Carlo simulation, based on 10,000 iterations, revealed an average breakeven point of 665 hours, corresponding to just over 11 weeks of 60-hour workweeks. This suggests that for any locum tenens engagement exceeding this duration, hiring a full-time anesthesiologist becomes more cost-effective for the healthcare institution. The simulation also showed that 28% of scenarios had a breakeven point below 60 days, highlighting the financial dynamics and decision-making complexities in employing locum tenens versus full-time physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that employing locum tenens physicians for durations shorter than 665 hours remains financially viable compared to the option of hiring full-time anesthesiologists. However, the significant variability observed in the simulations underscores the importance of context in making staffing decisions. Healthcare organizations must consider the specific needs and circumstances of their operations when deciding between hiring locum tenens and full-time physicians, especially for longer-term coverage requirements.
METHODS: We developed a Python simulation model to compare the costs of hiring locum tenens versus full-time anesthesiologists. The model inputs included hourly rates for both locum tenens and full-time anesthesiologists and the upfront hiring costs for full-time physicians. By plotting these costs against each other, the model identifies the breakeven point: the number of working hours at which the cost of employing a locum tenens physician equals that of hiring a full-time physician. Utilizing Monte Carlo simulations with data from the Northeastern United States, we assessed the variability and determined an average breakeven point across different scenarios.
RESULTS: The Monte Carlo simulation, based on 10,000 iterations, revealed an average breakeven point of 665 hours, corresponding to just over 11 weeks of 60-hour workweeks. This suggests that for any locum tenens engagement exceeding this duration, hiring a full-time anesthesiologist becomes more cost-effective for the healthcare institution. The simulation also showed that 28% of scenarios had a breakeven point below 60 days, highlighting the financial dynamics and decision-making complexities in employing locum tenens versus full-time physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that employing locum tenens physicians for durations shorter than 665 hours remains financially viable compared to the option of hiring full-time anesthesiologists. However, the significant variability observed in the simulations underscores the importance of context in making staffing decisions. Healthcare organizations must consider the specific needs and circumstances of their operations when deciding between hiring locum tenens and full-time physicians, especially for longer-term coverage requirements.
摘要：
背景：当前对家兔医师的研究主要集中在其安全性上，可靠性,和患者的结果，在理解他们在卫生系统就业的财务影响方面留下了很大的差距。在各专业医生持续短缺的情况下，医疗保健组织越来越依赖locumtenens来满足日益增长的临床服务需求。这项研究旨在通过评估与全职麻醉师相比，雇用现场医生的财务可行性来弥合知识差距。考虑到医生短缺和医疗保健需求不断增加的背景。
方法：我们开发了一个Python模拟模型，以比较雇用locumtenens和全职麻醉师的成本。模型输入包括现场和全职麻醉师的每小时费率以及全职医生的前期招聘成本。通过相互规划这些成本，该模型确定了盈亏平衡点：雇用临时医生的成本等于雇用全职医生的工作小时数。利用蒙特卡洛模拟与美国东北部的数据，我们评估了变异性,并确定了不同情况下的平均盈亏平衡点.
结果：蒙特卡罗模拟，基于10000次迭代，显示平均盈亏平衡点为665小时,相当于超过11周的60小时工作周。这表明，对于超过此持续时间的任何局部接触，对于医疗机构来说，雇佣一名全职麻醉师变得更具成本效益。模拟还显示，28%的情景的盈亏平衡点低于60天，突出了雇佣临时医生和全职医生的财务动态和决策复杂性。
结论：研究结果表明，与雇用全职麻醉师相比，雇用住院时间短于665小时的患者医生在财务上仍然可行。然而,在模拟中观察到的显著可变性强调了背景在做出人员配置决策中的重要性。医疗保健组织在决定雇佣临时医生和全职医生时，必须考虑其业务的具体需求和情况。特别是对于长期覆盖要求。
方法：我们开发了一个Python模拟模型，以比较雇用locumtenens和全职麻醉师的成本。模型输入包括现场和全职麻醉师的每小时费率以及全职医生的前期招聘成本。通过相互规划这些成本，该模型确定了盈亏平衡点：雇用临时医生的成本等于雇用全职医生的工作小时数。利用蒙特卡洛模拟与美国东北部的数据，我们评估了变异性,并确定了不同情况下的平均盈亏平衡点.
结果：蒙特卡罗模拟，基于10000次迭代，显示平均盈亏平衡点为665小时,相当于超过11周的60小时工作周。这表明，对于超过此持续时间的任何局部接触，对于医疗机构来说，雇佣一名全职麻醉师变得更具成本效益。模拟还显示，28%的情景的盈亏平衡点低于60天，突出了雇佣临时医生和全职医生的财务动态和决策复杂性。
结论：研究结果表明，与雇用全职麻醉师相比，雇用住院时间短于665小时的患者医生在财务上仍然可行。然而,在模拟中观察到的显著可变性强调了背景在做出人员配置决策中的重要性。医疗保健组织在决定雇佣临时医生和全职医生时，必须考虑其业务的具体需求和情况。特别是对于长期覆盖要求。
