Leadership Development Strategies in Interprofessional Healthcare Collaboration: A Rapid Review

Abstract

Background Contemporary healthcare practitioners require leadership skills for a variety of professional roles related to improved patient/client outcomes, heightened personal and professional development, as well as strengthened interprofessional collaboration and teamwork. Objective/Aim The aim of this study is to systematically catalogue literature on leadership in healthcare practice and education to highlight the leadership characteristics and skills required by healthcare practitioners for collaborative interprofessional service delivery and the leadership development strategies found to be effective. Methods/Design A rapid review was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) diagram shows that the 11 databases, yielded 465 records. A total of 147 records were removed during the initial screening phase. The remaining 318 records were uploaded onto Rayyan, an online collaborative review platform. Following abstract level screening, a further 236 records were removed with 82 records meeting the eligibility criteria at full text level, of which 42 were included in the data extraction. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal. Results Results showed variability in methodologies used, representing various healthcare disciplines with a range in population size (n = 6 to n = 537). Almost half of the results reported on new programs, with interprofessional collaboration and teamwork being the most frequently mentioned strategies. The training content, strategies used as well as the length of training varied. There were five outcomes which showed positive change, namely skills, knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and satisfaction. Conclusion This rapid review provided an evidence-base, highlighted by qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research, which presents distinct opportunities for curriculum development by focusing on both content and the methods needed for leadership programs. Anchoring this evidence-base within a systematic search of the extant literature provides increased precision for curriculum development.

A Systemic Model for Resilience and Time Management in Healthcare Academia

“…Overall, insights from TASM suggest that academic administrators play a crucial role in shaping the organizational culture, establishing support structures, and implementing policies that facilitate efficient time management practices [24]. Academic administrators and automation in administrative tasks can empower healthcare academicians to focus on their core responsibilities and achieve their professional goals, by delegating administrative tasks, providing training and resources, and creating a supportive work environment [104] The implementation of time management programs in healthcare academia requires meticulous planning, resource allocation, and evaluation to address the multifaceted challenges encountered by healthcare academicians [105]. These initiatives aim to enhance efficiency and productivity across research, teaching, and administrative domains, promising benefits such as heightened job satisfaction and academic performance [1,98].…”

“…If the system dedicates adequate financial and personnel resources, institutions can facilitate the smooth execution of these initiatives while minimizing disruptions to regular academic activities [108]. Furthermore, robust evaluation mechanisms play a pivotal role in assessing the impact of these programs on academic productivity and overall well-being, guiding informed decision-making and future investments in time management strategies [20,105]. Overall, addressing challenges such as resistance to change and technological barriers demands proactive measures, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and ongoing support to ensure the successful adoption and sustainability of time management initiatives.…”

A Framework for Innovation in Obesity

“…Just as with theories of innovation and change, leadership theories lack critical evaluation, scientific rigor, and scrutiny. Assumptions about leadership styles are mostly gained from case histories, unvalidated questionnaires, and post-hoc analysis 138,139 . Randomized controlled trials of leadership archetypes versus impact have not been conducted but artificial intelligence affords new opportunities in this space 71 .…”