[Leadership and management courses for clinicians]. / Ärztliche Führung im Krankenhaus. Praktischer Nutzen von ärztlichen Führungs- und Management Kursen aus subjektiver Sicht der Teilnehmenden.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the benefit of Leadership and Management Courses for clinicians, specifically which leadership and management contents are beneficial to their daily clinical work and whether these contents support their individual career. METHOD: E-mail invitations to participate in the study were sent to all 543 medical doctors of the University Hospital Hanover, Germany, who had taken part in one of the leadership and management courses offered between June 2005 and June 2015. The enquiry was carried out between June 1 and June 30, 2015. 84 e-mail addresses were no longer active; and so, N=459 clinicians actually received the invitation. Of these, 104 participated (22.7%). RESULTS: The study included 59 items. Six were free text items, twelve items were closed questions which could be answered by choosing from a drop down menu, and 41 were answered on a Likert scale from 0 (not fitting at all) to 10 (perfect fit). Based on the items answered on a Likert scale, the following scales and mean values were deduced: Job Satisfaction (M=7.44); Leadership (M=7.77); Trust (M=7.22); Striving for Power (M=7,45); negative Affect (M=4,91); Target Achievement Motivation (M=8.19); Communication (M=8.30) and Management (M=6.48). Regression analysis showed that Job- and Team Satisfaction can predict to what extent the participants regard themselves as good leaders. The study participants defined the following topics as very important: leadership and management style, managerial functions, team management, human resources development and project management. Further topics included rhetoric skills, presentation techniques, as well as basic economics such as understanding balance sheets, profit & loss statements and contribution margin calculation. 55% of the course contents were described as being directly applicable to their daily working environment. In the clinicians' view, the ideal leader acts as a role model (passing on values like respect, appreciation, honesty, openness, fairness, sense of justice, and empathy), someone who motivates his colleagues by giving them a vision, structure and transparency. The participants estimated that they met 60% of these qualifications. 51% of the participants found the course highly beneficial, and 45% rated it as being beneficial. 55% said that the course boosted their career. 96% were willing to attend further leadership and management courses. 98% would recommend the course to their colleagues. CONCLUSION: The return rate of 22.7%, the subjective benefit of the courses (96%), the willingness to attend such courses (96%) and to recommend them to colleagues (98%) demonstrates that clinicians are highly interested in leadership and management topics. This may be due to the fact that these topics are not part of the training program for medical students or junior doctors. Our findings are in consistent with organisational and psychological research results showing that "soft" psychological factors related to leadership topics are a significant and crucial factor behind the success of organisations and hospitals.

Expectancy, usage and acceptance by general practitioners and patients: exploratory results from a study in the German outpatient sector.

OBJECTIVE: The study's objective was to assess factors contributing to the use of smart devices by general practitioners (GPs) and patients in the health domain, while specifically addressing the situation in Germany, and to determine whether, and if so, how both groups differ in their perceptions of these technologies. METHODS: GPs and patients of resident practices in the Hannover region, Germany, were surveyed between April and June 2014. A total of 412 GPs in this region were invited by email to participate via an electronic survey, with 50 GPs actually doing so (response rate 12.1%). For surveying the patients, eight regional resident practices were visited by study personnel (once each). Every second patient arriving there (inclusion criteria: of age, fluent in German) was asked to take part (paper-based questionnaire). One hundred and seventy patients participated; 15 patients who did not give consent were excluded. RESULTS: The majority of the participating patients (68.2%, 116/170) and GPs (76%, 38/50) owned mobile devices. Of the patients, 49.9% (57/116) already made health-related use of mobile devices; 95% (36/38) of the participating GPs used them in a professional context. For patients, age (P < 0.001) and education (P < 0.001) were significant factors, but not gender (P > 0.99). For doctors, neither age (P = 0.73), professional experience (P > 0.99) nor gender (P = 0.19) influenced usage rates. For patients, the primary use case was obtaining health (service)-related information. For GPs, interprofessional communication and retrieving information were in the foreground. There was little app-related interaction between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: GPs and patients use smart mobile devices to serve their specific interests. However, the full potentials of mobile technologies for health purposes are not yet being taken advantage of. Doctors as well as other care providers and the patients should work together on exploring and realising the potential benefits of the technology.

Mobile technologies: expectancy, usage, and acceptance of clinical staff and patients at a university medical center.

BACKGROUND: Despite their increasing popularity, little is known about how users perceive mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs in medical contexts. Available studies are often restricted to evaluating the success of specific interventions and do not adequately cover the users' basic attitudes, for example, their expectations or concerns toward using mobile devices in medical settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to obtain a comprehensive picture, both from the perspective of the patients, as well as the doctors, regarding the use and acceptance of mobile devices within medical contexts in general well as the perceived challenges when introducing the technology. METHODS: Doctors working at Hannover Medical School (206/1151, response 17.90%), as well as patients being admitted to this facility (213/279, utilization 76.3%) were surveyed about their acceptance and use of mobile devices in medical settings. Regarding demographics, both samples were representative of the respective study population. GNU R (version 3.1.1) was used for statistical testing. Fisher's exact test, two-sided, alpha=.05 with Monte Carlo approximation, 2000 replicates, was applied to determine dependencies between two variables. RESULTS: The majority of participants already own mobile devices (doctors, 168/206, 81.6%; patients, 110/213, 51.6%). For doctors, use in a professional context does not depend on age (P=.66), professional experience (P=.80), or function (P=.34); gender was a factor (P=.009), and use was more common among male (61/135, 45.2%) than female doctors (17/67, 25%). A correlation between use of mobile devices and age (P=.001) as well as education (P=.002) was seen for patients. Minor differences regarding how mobile devices are perceived in sensitive medical contexts mostly relate to data security, patients are more critical of the devices being used for storing and processing patient data; every fifth patient opposed this, but nevertheless, 4.8% of doctors (10/206) use their devices for this purpose. Both groups voiced only minor concerns about the credibility of the provided content or the technical reliability of the devices. While 8.3% of the doctors (17/206) avoided use during patient contact because they thought patients might be unfamiliar with the devices, (25/213) 11.7% of patients expressed concerns about the technology being too complicated to be used in a health context. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in how patients and doctors perceive the use of mobile devices can be attributed to age and level of education; these factors are often mentioned as contributors of the problems with (mobile) technologies. To fully realize the potential of mobile technologies in a health care context, the needs of both the elderly as well as those who are educationally disadvantaged need to be carefully addressed in all strategies relating to mobile technology in a health context.