Evidence-based Medical Leadership Development: A Systematic Review

Oscar T. Lyon
{"title":"Evidence-based Medical Leadership Development: A Systematic Review","authors":"Oscar T. Lyon","doi":"10.37707/jnds.v2i4.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1Alexander Mafi, 2Oscar Lyons, 3Robynne George, 4Joao Galante, 5Thomas Fordwoh, 6Jan Frich,7Jaason Geerts \n1University of Oxford, UK, 2University of Oxford, UK, 3Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust,4Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK, 5University of Oxford, UK, 6University of Oslo,Norway, 7Canadian College of Health Leaders, Ottawa, Canada \n  \nHealth systems invest significant resources in leadership development for physicians and other health professionals. Competent leadership is considered vital for maintaining and improving quality and patient safety. We carried out this systematic review to synthesise new empirical evidence regarding medical leadership development programme factors which are associated with outcomes at the clinical and organisational levels. \n117 studies were included in this systematic review. 28 studies met criteria for higher reliability studies. The median critical appraisal score according to the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument for quantitative studies was 8.5/18 and the median critical appraisal score according to the Jonna Briggs Institute checklist for qualitative studies was 3/10. There were recurring causes of low study quality scores related to study design, data analysis and reporting. There was considerable heterogeneity in intervention design and evaluation design. Programmes with internal or mixed faculty were significantly more likely to report organisational outcomes than programmes with external faculty only (p=0.049). Project work and mentoring increased the likelihood of organisational outcomes. No leadership development content area was particularly associated with organisational outcomes. \nIn leadership development programmes in healthcare, external faculty should be used to supplement in-house faculty and not be a replacement for in-house expertise. To facilitate organisational outcomes, interventions should include project work and mentoring. Educational methods appear to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific curriculum content. Improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.","PeriodicalId":184356,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences","volume":"37 7","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37707/jnds.v2i4.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

1Alexander Mafi, 2Oscar Lyons, 3Robynne George, 4Joao Galante, 5Thomas Fordwoh, 6Jan Frich,7Jaason Geerts 1University of Oxford, UK, 2University of Oxford, UK, 3Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust,4Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK, 5University of Oxford, UK, 6University of Oslo,Norway, 7Canadian College of Health Leaders, Ottawa, Canada   Health systems invest significant resources in leadership development for physicians and other health professionals. Competent leadership is considered vital for maintaining and improving quality and patient safety. We carried out this systematic review to synthesise new empirical evidence regarding medical leadership development programme factors which are associated with outcomes at the clinical and organisational levels. 117 studies were included in this systematic review. 28 studies met criteria for higher reliability studies. The median critical appraisal score according to the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument for quantitative studies was 8.5/18 and the median critical appraisal score according to the Jonna Briggs Institute checklist for qualitative studies was 3/10. There were recurring causes of low study quality scores related to study design, data analysis and reporting. There was considerable heterogeneity in intervention design and evaluation design. Programmes with internal or mixed faculty were significantly more likely to report organisational outcomes than programmes with external faculty only (p=0.049). Project work and mentoring increased the likelihood of organisational outcomes. No leadership development content area was particularly associated with organisational outcomes. In leadership development programmes in healthcare, external faculty should be used to supplement in-house faculty and not be a replacement for in-house expertise. To facilitate organisational outcomes, interventions should include project work and mentoring. Educational methods appear to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific curriculum content. Improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.
循证医学领导力发展:系统回顾
1Alexander Mafi, 2Oscar Lyons, 3Robynne George, 4Joao Galante, 5Thomas Fordwoh, 6Jan Frich,7 jajason Geerts 1英国牛津大学,2英国牛津大学,3皇家联合医院Bath NHS Trust,4英国牛津大学医院NHS Trust, 5英国牛津大学,6挪威奥斯陆大学,7加拿大渥太华卫生领导学院卫生系统为医生和其他卫生专业人员的领导力发展投入了大量资源。称职的领导被认为是维持和提高质量和患者安全的关键。我们进行了这一系统的审查,以综合新的经验证据,关于医学领导力发展计划的因素,这是与临床和组织层面的结果有关。本系统综述纳入了117项研究。28项研究符合高可靠性研究的标准。根据医学教育研究质量工具进行定量研究的中位数批判性评价得分为8.5/18,根据Jonna Briggs研究所检查表进行定性研究的中位数批判性评价得分为3/10。研究质量得分低的原因与研究设计、数据分析和报告有关。干预设计和评价设计存在较大的异质性。有内部或混合教师的项目比只有外部教师的项目更有可能报告组织成果(p=0.049)。项目工作和指导增加了组织成果的可能性。没有领导力发展内容领域与组织成果特别相关。在医疗保健领域的领导力发展项目中,外部教师应该用来补充内部教师,而不是取代内部专业知识。为了促进组织成果,干预措施应包括项目工作和指导。教育方法似乎比具体的课程内容对组织成果更重要。改进评估设计将使教育工作者和评估人员能够更有效地了解与领导力发展的组织结果可靠相关的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信