Keywords: Resilience, General Practitioners, Burnout professional

Introduction:

To compare the sociodemographic profile, workload, and quality of care indicators between family physicians with high and low resilience.

Method:

A descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study using convenience sampling in Primary Care centers in Catalonia. Prospective, real-time clinical activity records from a full week in May 2025 were analyzed. Studied variables: sociodemographics, workload and casuistry objective biological complexity (AGM); quality and perception indicators and end-of-day impact. Primary variable: Resilience (CD-RISC10 questionnaire (0-40). A bivariate comparative analysis (Student's t-test and Chi-square) was performed between the High Resilience ( 33 points) and Low Resilience (< 25.5 points) groups.

Results:

56 physicians. High resilience: n=18 (32.1%); Low resilience: n=16 (28.6%). Sociodemographics: No significant differences in age (52.1 vs 47.5 years; p=0.16), female proportion (66.7% vs 68.8%; p=1.00), or other sociodemographic factors. Workload: The high resilience group assumed fewer visits per week (139.2 vs 159.2; p=0.032) and a lower proportion of psychosocial burden (2.5% vs 4.4%; p<0.001), but performed more face-to-face care (53.5% vs 48.2%; p<0.001). Complexity: No differences in patients' biological complexity (GMA 2.44 vs 2.41; p=0.286) or motives per visit (1.39 vs 1.41; $p=0.312$). Perceived complexity due to lack of time was half in the resilient group compared to the low resilience group (20.7% vs 41.1%; p<0.001). Quality of Care: The resilient group showed higher adequacy (84.4% vs 80.6%; p=0.001) and clinical resolution (48.2% vs 42.4%; p<0.001). Final Impact: Less daily accumulated delay (22.5 vs 33.7 minutes; p=0.006) and lower final fatigue (5.3 vs 7.9 out of 10; p<0.001). Burnout prevalence was 0.0% in high resilience vs. 31.2% in low resilience (p=0.037).

Conclusions:

Resilient physicians face similar biological complexity but manage a controlled visit volume, prioritize face-to-face care, and absorb less psychosocial burden. This practice pattern boosts clinical resolution, halves perceived time scarcity (complexity due to lack of time), and significantly reduces delay and end-of-day fatigue.