Compensation, employment, and burnout of veterinary anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To collect data on compensation of veterinary anesthesiologists and establish a relationship with geographical location, employment type, and burnout. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online, voluntary, anonymous survey. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 261 Diplomates of the American and European College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia (DACVAA, DECVAA). METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was sent to collect sociodemographic, employment, benefits, work-life balance, and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). The CBI consisted of three domains: work-related, personal, and client-related. Each CBI item was scored 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%, corresponding to Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, or Always. The mean value for each scale was calculated, and the mean value for all scales was taken as the CBI score for that individual. Although CBI was developed to assess three conceptually distinct dimensions and validation remains limited, this overall score was adopted as a pragmatic summary measure for the regression. Linear and logistic regression models were built to analyze relationships. RESULTS: Study cohort response rate was 65% (261/403 Diplomates) with a completion rate of 87% (228/261), comprised of 66% female (172/261) and 33% male (87/261) respondents. Private practice offered a higher salary than academia (p < 0.001). Within the US, the difference in median salary between private practice and academia was $68,000. Academic anesthesiologists worked more hours per week [median (interquartile range) 50 (40-50) versus 40 (38-45), p = 0.003]. Burnout was low (CBI less than 50) to moderate (CBI 50-74), with a median (interquartile range) value for the sample total burnout score of 44 (30-62) in academia, 43 (28-56) in private practice, and 37 (26-53) for other sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Academic roles provide lower salaries compared to private practice and work more hours per week. CBI scores were low to moderate. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This data allows for informed workforce discussions.