Charting Conquered · Preliminary Data
Physicians Cut After-Hours Charting in Half — in Six Weeks
Preliminary results from 130 healthcare professionals across 8 cohorts (2021–2024), measured with the validated Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index for burnout & fulfillment.
Not yet peer-reviewed — peer review in process
Executive Summary
Comprehensive analysis of healthcare professional wellbeing intervention effectiveness
Key Achievements
- 100% statistical significance across all 17 measures (p < 0.001)
- Large effect sizes (Cohen’s d > 0.8) for primary outcomes
- Generalizable across physicians & APPs, specialty, practice setting
- Strong intervention effectiveness suggested by this preliminary data
Study Characteristics
- Study Population: 130 healthcare professionals in 8 cohorts between 2021-2024
- Intervention: 6-week virtual group coaching program
- Statistical Method: Paired pre-post survey data analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank testing)
- Instrument: Self-reported charting hours outside of work and Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index
Clinical Significance
Percentage of participants achieving clinically meaningful improvements (defined as 0.5 SD)
Time & Value Impact
50%
Reduction in after-hours documentation
6.7
Hours reclaimed weekly
348
Hours reclaimed per year
$52k
Annual personal time value (based on $150/hr rate)
Primary Outcomes Summary
Charting Hours Outside Work
| Baseline 13.35 hrs/week | Post-Intervention 6.67 hrs/week | Abs Change -6.68 hrs | % Change -50% |
Baseline6.67
6 Weeks
Effect Size: Large (d = 0.80) • 60.0% achieved clinical significance (n = 125)
Overall Burnout
| Baseline 22.95 points | Post-Intervention 14.01 points | Abs Change -8.94 points | % Change -39% |
Baseline14.01
6 Weeks
Effect Size: Large (d = 1.13) • 73.8% achieved clinical significance (≥4 point reduction)
Professional Fulfillment Total
| Baseline 14.95 points | Post-Intervention 18.05 points | Abs Change +3.10 points | % Change +21% |
Baseline18.05
6 Weeks
Effect Size: Large (d = 0.97) • 66.2% achieved clinical significance
Key Categorical Improvements
Burnout Recovery (<14 points)
46.5%
of participants with burnout at baseline recovered.
Impact on Burnout Prevalence (≥14) in the Population
| 87.7% Baseline Prevalence | ↓ -38.5% | 49.2% Post-Intervention Prevalence |
High Fulfillment Achievement (≥18 points)
50.5%
of participants below threshold achieved high fulfillment.
Combined Success
| 20.0% Achieved BOTH outcomes | 56.9% At least one improvement |
Categorical Outcome Analysis: McNemar’s Test Results
Transition summaries showing participant movement between risk categories from pre- to post-intervention, with green indicating improvements and red indicating worsening.
Burnout Classification Transitions
Threshold: ≥14 points = High likelihood of burnout
Professional Fulfillment Transitions
Threshold: ≥18 points = High professional fulfillment
Charting Hours Transitions
Threshold: ≥11.0 hours/week = High charting burden (n = 125 with complete charting data)
Clinically Meaningful Improvement
Proportion of participants improving by at least half a standard deviation from baseline — reported as simple rates
3 in 4
Overall Burnout
73.8% achieved a meaningful reduction (≥4 points)
2 in 3
Professional Fulfillment
66.2% achieved meaningful gains (≥1.98 points)
3 in 5
Charting Hours
60.0% meaningfully cut charting time (≥4.22 hrs/week)
Effect Sizes vs the Published Intervention Literature
Cohen’s d for this program compared with typical physician-burnout interventions
Comparator range from controlled-intervention meta-analyses (West et al. 2016; Panagioti et al. 2017). This study is single-arm pre-post; effect sizes are not adjusted against a control group.
Reading These Numbers Honestly
These are improvement rates from a single-arm pre-post study: every participant received the program, so there is no control group, and the rates include any improvement that would have occurred naturally. They describe how many participants got meaningfully better — not a controlled treatment effect. Peer review of the full analysis is in process.
Effect Sizes by Outcome Measure
Hierarchical display showing composite measures and their components (p < 0.001)
Individual Measures
Composite Summary Measures
6-item Stanford PFI professional fulfillment scale: Happy, Worthwhile, Satisfying, In Control, Meaningful, Contributing
10-item scale: 4 work-exhaustion items (incl. Emotional Exhaustion d = 1.02, Physical Exhaustion d = 0.93) + 6 interpersonal disengagement items
Statistical Summary
Comprehensive statistical analysis with conservative corrections
Statistical Methods
- Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (non-parametric)
- Bonferroni correction across all 17 reported measures (α = 0.05/17 = 0.0029)
- Cohen’s d from paired difference scores
- 95% confidence intervals
- Complete-pair analysis; item-level missing data ≤5 participants per measure
Key Findings
- All 17 measures statistically significant (largest p = 2.2 × 10⁻⁴, well below α = 0.0029)
- 7 of 17 measures with large effects (d ≥ 0.8); 9 medium; 1 small
- Consistent direction of improvement across every measure
- Clinically meaningful improvements for the majority of participants
Statistical Power Analysis
All categorical analyses achieved excellent statistical power (>99%) with large numbers of discordant pairs
| 56 Burnout discordant pairs | 49 Fulfillment discordant pairs | 51 Charting discordant pairs |
Study Design
Comprehensive pre-post intervention analysis with validated instruments
Participants
- Sample Size: 130 healthcare professionals with paired intake and exit data
- Recruitment: 8 cohorts (2021-2024)
- Participation Rate: 33.2% of enrolled (130/392)
- Missing Data: item-level missingness ≤5 participants per measure (charting hours n = 125)
- Demographics: Diverse healthcare settings
Intervention
- Duration: 6-week structured program
- Format: Group-based intervention
- Components: Multi-modal approach
- Delivery: All virtual and/or asynchronous by professional physician coach
- Follow-up: Post-intervention assessment
Measurement Instruments
Validated scales with established psychometric properties
Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index
Validated 16-item instrument scored 0–4 per item: a 6-item professional fulfillment scale (happy, worthwhile, satisfying, in control, meaningful, contributing) and a 10-item burnout scale combining work exhaustion (4 items) and interpersonal disengagement (6 items). High fulfillment defined as total ≥18 (item mean ≥3.0, the established PFI cutpoint); high burnout likelihood as total ≥14.
Charting Time Assessment
Self-reported weekly hours spent on documentation outside of regular work hours.
Statistical Analysis Plan
Conservative approach with multiple comparison corrections
Primary Analysis
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for all outcomes due to non-normal distributions. Bonferroni correction applied across all 17 reported measures (α = 0.0029); every measure remained significant.
Effect Size Calculation
Cohen’s d calculated using difference score standard deviations. Interpretation: Small (0.2), Medium (0.5), Large (0.8+).
Sensitivity Analyses
Multiple imputation for missing data, per-protocol analysis, and alternative effect size calculations to ensure robustness.
Limitations & Interpretation Notes
- Pre-post design without a control group limits causal inference, though the magnitude and consistency of effects across continuous and categorical analyses strengthen the evidence
- 33.2% participation rate is consistent with voluntary intervention studies but may limit generalizability
- Self-report measures may be subject to response bias, mitigated by use of validated instruments
- Six-week follow-up demonstrates short-term effectiveness; long-term sustainability requires further study
- This data has not yet been peer-reviewed — peer review is in process
Get the full paper when it publishes
Peer review is in process. Join the list and we’ll send the complete analysis the moment it’s out — no spam, one email.
Explore the Charting Conquered ProgramBe first to read it
One email when the paper drops. Unsubscribe anytime.
