Gold standard research and evidence applied: The Inspire Nursing Leadership Program.

Billions of dollars are invested annually in leadership development globally; however, few programs are evidence-based, risking adverse outcomes, and wasted time and money. This article describes the novel Inspire Nursing Leadership Program (INLP) and the outcomes-based process of incorporating gold standard evidence into its design, delivery, and evaluation. The INLP design was informed by a needs analysis, research evidence, and by nursing, Indigenous, and equity, diversity, and inclusion experts. The program's goals include enabling participants to develop leadership capabilities, cultivate strategic community partnerships, lead innovation projects, and connect with colleagues. Design features include an outcomes-based approach, the LEADS framework, and alignment with the principles of adult learning. Components include leadership impact projects, 360-assessments, blended interactive sessions, coaching, mentoring, and application and reflection exercises. The evaluation framework and subsequent proposed research design align to top-quality standards. Healthcare leadership programs must be evidence-based to support leaders in improving and transforming health systems.

Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation.

BACKGROUND: Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies. RESULTS: 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes. CONCLUSION: Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.