Developing physician leaders: does it work?

Abstract

background Leader development programmes are signature features of frontrunner multinational companies. Healthcare institutions have generally lagged behind, though attention to implementing leader development programmes in healthcare institutions is increasing. The rationale for leader development in healthcare is that leadership competencies matter and that traditional selection and training of physicians may conspire against both optimal leadership competencies and followership. Methods The growth of leader development in healthcare institutions begs the question: Does leader development work? results In this context, three meta-analyses have examined the impact of leader development programmes in healthcare institutions. In general, findings from these studies indicate that while studies do assess the subjective learning of participants, few studies have evaluated the organisational impact of such leader development programmes. Conclusions These findings suggest the need for more rigorous, objective assessment of the organisational impact of leader development programmes in healthcare institutions. Such evidence is critically needed in the current resource-constrained environment of healthcare.

Effectiveness of a Leadership Development Course for Chief Residents: A Longitudinal Evaluation

“…Several systematic reviews of physician leadership development programs have shown substantial evidence gaps, especially regarding long-term measures and highimpact outcomes. [24][25][26] The current study was undertaken to address these gaps. Specifically, we measured immediate and intermediate outcomes associated with a longstanding leadership workshop 3 offered to all CRs at the Cleveland Clinic.…”

Unlocking medical leadership’s potential: a multilevel virtuous circle?

“…Eventually, organisations, regulators, managers and doctors who consider promoting ML as a cornerstone of forming modern regional care networks are advised to create learning organisations that ‘adapt better to rapid environmental change and implement quality improvement practices more quickly’ (p287) 49. Incidentally, such transformative settings also provide excellent practice-based learning opportunities, essential to medical and other leadership development: a two-sided sword of organisations’ investments in their ‘social capital’ 4 10 45. The overarching aim and corresponding expectation is that contemporary top-down endorsed, middle-management-enhanced and bottom-up cocreated healthcare transformation will encompass improvement of organisational performances in various hard and soft dimensions,50 51 which also requires individual doctors to have a strong voice in how they are led and how change is navigated.…”

“…Arguably, the design, planning and delivery of ML training, often hosted by professional associations or ‘in house’ by healthcare organisations,3 4 6 54 need to reflect on such contestations. These also need to take into account that generic or one-size-fits-all approaches can be inappropriate at the level of individual doctors.…”

“…ML has emerged over the last decade as a thoughtful attempt to rethink medical professionalism by doctors and their associations and as a major initiative in reforming and improving healthcare service delivery, quality and safety 1. However, much of ML’s current discourse and practice have focused on individual doctors’ competencies, guided by the introduction of various national and regional ML competency frameworks and associated ML training programmes 2–4. Although ML can and does contribute to healthcare transformation and system reform,5–7 we argue its current focus on individual-level competencies is both limited and limiting because, like traditional leadership theory in general, it risks emphasising medicine’s ‘muscular individualism’ of competencies, traits and behaviours and ‘one-size-fits-all’ prescriptions for development 8.…”

Multiprofessional leadership development: reflections from a doctor in training

“…Thus, while the evidence base for the value of leadership development is mixed, 14 one must caution in the heterogeneity of study designs and the framing of what it means when 'leadership courses work'-my own experiences during the COVID-19 surge is that many positive actions may not necessarily be captured and a more holistic view about what 'valuable' leadership means should be argued for.…”