LEADS+ Developmental Model: Proposing a new model based on an integrative conceptual review.

BACKGROUND: Leaders in academic health sciences centres (AHCs) must navigate multiple roles as an inherent component of their positions. Changing accountabilities, varying expectations, differing leadership capabilities required of multiple leadership roles can be exacerbated by health system disruption, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. We need improved models that support leaders in navigating the complexity of multiple leadership roles. METHOD: This integrative conceptual review sought to examine leadership and followership constructs and how they intersect with current leadership practices in AHCs. The goal was to develop a refined model of healthcare leadership development. The authors used iterative cycles of divergent and convergent thinking to explore and synthesise various literature and existing leadership frameworks. The authors used simulated personas and stories to test the model and, finally, the approach sought feedback from knowledge users (including healthcare leaders, medical educators and leadership developers) to offer refinements. RESULTS: After five rounds of discussion and reformulation, the authors arrived at a refined model: the LEADS+ Developmental Model. The model describes four nested stages, organising progressive capabilities, as an individual toggles between followership and leadership. During the consultation stage, feedback from 29 out of 65 recruited knowledge users (44.6% response rate) was acquired. More than a quarter of respondents served as a senior leader in a healthcare network or national society (27.5%, n = 8). Consulted knowledge users were invited to indicate their endorsement for the refined model using a 10-point scale (10 = highest level of endorsement). There was a high level of endorsement: 7.93 (SD 1.7) out of 10. CONCLUSION: The LEADS+ Developmental Model may help foster development of academic health centre leaders. In addition to clarifying the synergistic dynamic between leadership and followership, this model describes the paradigms adopted by leaders within health systems throughout their development journey.

Digital Transformation of Faculty Development: Responding and Supporting Academia During Disruptions Caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic disrupted the current practices for teaching and learning in medical and health professions education, creating challenges and opportunities for rapid transition. The authors describe how McMaster University's Program for Faculty Development (MacPFD) responded to this disruption by engaging in a digital transformation. METHODS: The digital transformation process of MacPFD was mapped to the conceptual framework of digital transformation: Vial's building blocks of the framework. A new website was launched to host and disseminate the content. Subsequently, both the website and the content were promoted using social media tools. Content generation, Google Analytics, event registrations, and Zoom webinar attendance records were data sources for the results. Analysis of the data was based on the reach component of the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: Six-month data range results were reported as producer-centered and user-centered outcomes. The former consisted of 54 resources from diverse content authors, whereas the latter received 33,045 page views from 26,031 unique users from 89 countries. Live webinar events had 1484 registrants, with 312 (21%) being guests from external institutions. Before the coronavirus disease 2019 disruption, MacPFD was a local program to support its faculty. DISCUSSION: The MacPFD's digital transformation shows a clear transition to a new "glocal" approach: an expanded global reach while still tending to our local development needs of the home institution's faculty members.

Six Principles for Developing Leadership Training Ecosystems in Health Care.

Leadership education in medicine is evolving to better meet the challenges of health care complexity, interprofessional practice, and threats from viruses and budget cuts alike. In this commentary, the authors build upon the findings of a scoping review by Matsas and colleagues, published in the same issue, and ask us to imagine what a learning ecosystem around leadership might look like. They subsequently engage in their own synthesis of leadership development literature and propose 6 key principles for medical educators and health care leaders to consider when designing leadership development within their educational ecosystems: (1) apply a conceptual framework; (2) scaffold development-oriented approaches; (3) accommodate individual levels of adult development; (4) integrate diversity of perspective; (5) interweave theory, practice, and reflection; and (6) recognize the broad range of leadership conceptualization.

Incorporating artificial intelligence in medical diagnosis: A case for an invisible and (un)disruptive approach.

As big data becomes more publicly accessible, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly available and applicable to problems around clinical decision-making. Yet the adoption of AI technology in healthcare lags well behind other industries. The gap between what technology could do, and what technology is actually being used for is rapidly widening. While many solutions are proposed to address this gap, clinician resistance to the adoption of AI remains high. To aid with change, we propose facilitating clinician decisions through technology by seamlessly weaving what we call 'invisible AI' into existing clinician workflows, rather than sequencing new steps into clinical processes. We explore evidence from the change management and human factors literature to conceptualize a new approach to AI implementation in health organizations. We discuss challenges and provide recommendations for organizations to employ this strategy.

Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Health Sciences Education: a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This scoping review aimed to explore the connection between health education and entrepreneurship and to identify gaps in the current literature, educational models, and best practices regarding teaching medical professionals about entrepreneurship and innovation. METHODS: The methodology for this review was based on the principles of Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) model for scoping review design. Results from Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Emcare, AMED, PubMed, and Google Scholar were scanned, filtered, and mapped. RESULTS: Fifty-nine unique papers were found and mapped. The papers discussed common themes, including the entrepreneurial environment (n = 29), career planning and skill development (n = 3), and various skills crucial for the health entrepreneur. The satisfaction was high for most programs, but few reported more fulsome outcomes. The teaching techniques used to engage trainees or physicians in entrepreneurship were also fairly limited. CONCLUSION: Though some programs are described, few have demonstrated efficacy. More attention should be paid towards faculty-level recruitment, development and reward, so that they may in turn teach these approaches. Those involved with educational planning can help close this gap.