Search results

The purpose of this study was to explore inter-professional clinicians’ perspectives on resident leadership in the context of inter-professional teams and to identify a definition for leadership in the clinical context. In 2015, CanMEDS changed the title of one of the core competencies from manager to leader. The shift in language was perceived by some as returning to traditional hierarchical and physician-dominant structures. The resulting uncertainty has resulted in a call to action to not only determine what physician leadership is but to also determine how to teach and assess it.

Focus groups and follow-up individual interviews were conducted with 23 inter-professional clinicians from three pediatric clinical service teams at a large, Canadian tertiary-level rehabilitation hospital. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to inductively analyze the data.

Data analysis resulted in one overarching theme: leadership is collaborative – and three related subthemes: leadership is shared; leadership is summative; and conceptualizations of leadership are shifting.

Not all members of the three inter-professional teams were able to attend the focus group sessions because of scheduling conflicts. Participation of additional clinicians could have, therefore, affected the results of this study. The study was conducted locally at a single rehabilitation hospital, among Canadian pediatric clinicians, which highlights the need to explore conceptualization of leadership across different contexts.

There is an evident need to prepare physicians to be leaders in both their daily clinical and academic practices. Therefore, more concerted efforts are required to develop leadership skills among residents. The authors postulate that continued integration of various inter-professional disciplines during the early phases of training is essential to foster collaborative leadership and trust.

The results of this study suggest that inter-professional clinicians view clinical leadership as collaborative and fluid and determined by the fit between tasks and team member expertise. Mentorship is important for increasing the ability of resident physicians to develop collaborative leadership roles within teams. The authors propose a collaborative definition of clinical leadership based on the results of this study: a shared responsibility that involves facilitation of dialog; the integration of perspectives and expertise; and collaborative planning for the purpose of exceptional patient care.

In North America, delegated practice “medical direction” models are often used as a proxy for clinical quality and safety in paramedic services. Other developed countries favor a combination of professional regulatory boards and clinical governance frameworks that feature paramedics taking lead clinician roles. The purpose of this paper is to bring together the evidence for medical direction and clinical governance in paramedic services through the prism of paramedic self-regulation.

This narrative synthesis critically examines the long-established North American Emergency Medical Services medical direction model and makes some comparisons with the UK inspired clinical governance approaches that are used to monitor and manage the quality and safety in several other Anglo-American paramedic services. The databases searched were CINAHL and Medline, with Google Scholar used to capture further publications.

Synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature found little high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of medical direction. The literature on clinical governance within paramedic services described a systems approach with shared responsibility for quality and safety. Contemporary paramedic clinical leadership papers in developed countries focus on paramedic professionalization and the self-regulation of paramedics.

The lack of strong evidence supporting medical direction of the paramedic profession in developed countries challenges the North American model of paramedics practicing as a companion profession to medicine under delegated practice model. This model is inconsistent with the international vision of paramedicine as an autonomous, self-regulated health profession.

UK fellowship schemes have been set up to address low-level engagement of doctors with leadership roles. Established in 2013, the Welsh Clinical Leadership Fellowship (WCLF) programme aims to recruit aspiring future clinical leaders and equip them with knowledge and skills to lead improvements in healthcare delivery. This paper aims to evaluate the 12-month WCLF programme in its first two years of operation.

Focused on the participants (n = 8), the authors explored expectations of the programme, reactions to academic components (provided by Academi Wales) and learning from workplace projects and other opportunities. The authors adopted a qualitative approach, collecting data from four focus groups, 20 individual face-to-face or telephone interviews with fellows and project supervisors and observation of Academi Wales training days.

Although from diverse specialties and stages in training, all participants reported that the Fellowship met expectations. Fellows learned leadership theory, developing understanding of leadership and teamwork in complex organisations. Through workplace projects, they applied their knowledge, learning from both success and failure. The quality of communication with fellows distinguished the better supervisors and impacted on project success.

Small participant numbers limit generalisability. The authors did not evaluate longer-term impact.

Doctors are required to be both clinically proficient and influence service delivery and improve patient care. The WCLF programme addresses both the need for leadership theory (through the Academi Wales training) and the application of learning through the performance of leadership roles in the projects.

This work represents an evaluation of the only leadership programme in Wales, and outcomes have led to improvements.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the way “hybrid” clinical managers in Kenyan public hospitals interpret and enact hybrid clinical managerial roles in complex healthcare settings affected by professional, managerial and practical norms.

The authors conducted a case study of two Kenyan district hospitals, involving repeated interviews with eight mid-level clinical managers complemented by interviews with 51 frontline workers and 6 senior managers, and 480 h of ethnographic field observations. The authors analysed and theorised data by combining inductive and deductive approaches in an iterative cycle.

Kenyan hybrid clinical managers were unprepared for managerial roles and mostly reluctant to do them. Therefore, hybrids’ understandings and enactment of their roles was determined by strong professional norms, official hospital management norms (perceived to be dysfunctional and unsupportive) and local practical norms developed in response to this context. To navigate the tensions between managerial and clinical roles in the absence of management skills and effective structures, hybrids drew meaning from clinical roles, navigating tensions using prevailing routines and unofficial practical norms.

Understanding hybrids’ interpretation and enactment of their roles is shaped by context and social norms and this is vital in determining the future development of health system’s leadership and governance. Thus, healthcare reforms or efforts aimed towards increasing compliance of public servants have little influence on behaviour of key actors because they fail to address or acknowledge the norms affecting behaviours in practice. The authors suggest that a key skill for clinical managers in managers in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) is learning how to read, navigate and when opportune use local practical norms to improve service delivery when possible and to help them operate in these new roles.

The authors believe that this paper is the first to empirically examine and discuss hybrid clinical healthcare in the LMICs context. The authors make a novel theoretical contribution by describing the important role of practical norms in LMIC healthcare contexts, alongside managerial and professional norms, and ways in which these provide hybrids with considerable agency which has not been previously discussed in the relevant literature.

The National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) recognizes that there is a tendency for the term “PDS” (Professional Development School) to be used as a catch-all for various relationships that constitute school–university partnership work. The intent of this NAPDS statement is to assert the essentials, or fundamental qualities, of a PDS. NAPDS encourages all those working in school–university relationships to embrace the Nine Essentials of PDSs communicated in this statement. The Essentials are written in tangible, rather than abstract, language and represent practical goals toward which work in a PDS should be directed.

Policy statement.

NAPDS maintains that these Nine Essentials need to be present for a school-university relationship to be called a PDS. Without having all nine, the relationship that exists between a school/district and college/university, albeit however strong, would not be a PDS. How individual PDSs meet these essentials will vary from location to location, but they all need to be in place to justify the use of the term “PDS.”

For those in established PDSs, some aspects of this document will be confirmed, while other aspects may be identified as needing attention. For those aspiring to establish PDSs, the authors offer this statement as a useful guide for their work. NAPDS invites individuals involved in school–university partnerships to share this statement with colleagues in the spirit of continuous improvement. By coming to terms with the challenges and opportunities inherent in this statement, the study can collectively fulfill the vision of this remarkable and distinct partnership called PDS.

This policy statement articulates how the Nine Essentials are the foundation of PDS work.

This study seeks to improve the understanding of physician leaders' leadership work challenges.

The subjects of the empirical study were physician leaders (n = 23) in the largest central hospital in Finland.

A total of five largely identity-related, partially paradoxical dilemmas appeared regarding why working as “just a leader” is challenging for physician leaders. First, the dilemma of identity ambiguity between being a physician and a leader. Second, the dilemma of balancing the expected commitment to clinical patient work by various stakeholders and that of physician leadership work. Third, the dilemma of being able to compensate for leadership skill shortcomings by excelling in clinical skills, encouraging physician leaders to commit to patient work. Fourth, the dilemma of “medic discourse”, that is, downplaying leadership work as “non-patient work”, making it inferior to patient work. Fifth, the dilemma of a perceived ethical obligation to commit to patient work even if the physician leadership work would be a full-time job. The first two issues support the findings of earlier research, while the remaining three emerging from the authors’ analysis are novel.

The authors list some of the practical implications that follow from this study and which could help solve some of the challenges.

This study explores physician leaders' leadership work challenges using authentic physician leader data in a context where no prior empirical research has been carried out.

The purpose of this paper is to review the current literature and summarises the benefits and limitations of having doctors in health management roles in today’s complex health environment.

This paper reviews the current literature on this topic.

Hospitals have evolved from being professional bureaucracies to being managed professional business with clinical directorates in place that are medically led.

Limitations include the difficulty doctors have balancing clinical duties and management, restricted profession-specific view and the lack of management competencies and/or training.

The benefits of having doctors in health management include bottom-up leadership, specialised knowledge of the profession, expert knowledge of clinical care, greater political influence, effective change champions to have on-side, frontline leadership and management, improved communication between doctors and senior management, advocacy for patient safety and quality, greater credibility with public and peers and the perception that doctors have more power and influence compared to other health professionals can be leveraged.

Overall, there are more benefits than there are limitations to having doctors in health management but there is a need for more management training for doctors.

Healthcare tribalism refers to the phenomenon through which different groups in a healthcare setting strictly adhere to their profession-based silo, within which they exhibit stereotypical behaviours. In turn, this can lead to deleterious downstream effects upon productivity and care delivered to patients. This study highlights a clinician-led governance model, implemented at a National Health Service (NHS) trust, to investigate whether it successfully overcame tribalism and helped drive innovation.

This was a convergent mixed-methods study including qualitative and quantitative data collected in parallel. Qualitative data included 27 semi-structured interviews with representatives from four professional groups. Quantitative data were collected through a verbally administered survey and scored on a 10-point scale.

The trust arranged its services under five autonomous business units, with a clinician and a manager sharing the leadership role at each unit. According to interviewees replies, this equivalent authority was cascaded down and enabled breaking down professional siloes, which in turn aided in the adoption of an innovative clinical model restructure.

This study contributes to the literature by characterizing a real-world example in which healthcare tribalism was mitigated while reflecting on the advantages yielded as a result.

Previous studies from all over the world identified major differences in the perspectives of different healthcare professional groups. In the United Kingdom, clinicians largely felt cut off from decision-making and dissatisfied with their managerial role. The study findings explain a governance model that allowed harmony and inclusion of different professions. Given the long-standing strains on healthcare systems worldwide, stakeholders can leverage the study findings for guidance in developing and implementing innovative managerial approaches.

The purpose of the article is to analyze how physicians and nurses, as the two major health care professions, experience psychological empowerment for managerial work.

The study was designed as a qualitative interview study at four primary care centers (PCCs) in Sweden. In total, 47 interviews were conducted, mainly with physicians and nurses. The first inductive analysis led us to the concept of psychological empowerment, which was used in the next deductive step of the analysis.

The study showed that both professions experienced self-determination for managerial work, but that nurses were more dependent on structural empowerment. Nurses experienced that they had competence for managerial work, whereas physicians were more ignorant of such competence. Nurses used managerial work to create impact on the conditions for their clinical work, whereas physicians experienced impact independently. Both nurses and physicians experienced managerial work as meaningful, but less meaningful than nurses and physicians' clinical work.

For an effective health care system, structural changes in terms of positions, roles, and responsibilities can be an important route for especially nurses' psychological empowerment.

The qualitative method provided a complementary understanding of psychological empowerment on how psychological empowerment interacted with other factors. One such aspect was nurses' higher dependence on structural empowerment, but the most important aspect was that both physicians and nurses experienced that managerial work was less meaningful than clinical work. This implies that psychological empowerment for managerial work may only make a difference if psychological empowerment does not compete with physicians' and nurses' clinical work.