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.

Training for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean birth: multimethod evaluation of a pilot.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of national multiprofessional training for managing the obstetric emergency of impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean birth has potential to improve quality and safety in maternity care, but is currently lacking in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a training package for managing IFH at caesarean birth with multiprofessional maternity teams. METHODS: The training included an evidence-based lecture supported by an animated video showing management of IFH, followed by hands-on workshops and real-time simulations with use of a birth simulation trainer, augmented reality and management algorithms. Guided by the Kirkpatrick framework, we conducted a multimethod evaluation of the training with multiprofessional maternity teams. Participants rated post-training statements about relevance and helpfulness of the training and pre-training and post-training confidence in their knowledge and skills relating to IFH (7-point Likert scales, strongly disagree to strongly agree). An ethnographer recorded sociotechnical observations during the training. Participants provided feedback in post-training focus groups. RESULTS: Participants (N=57) included 21 midwives, 25 obstetricians, 7 anaesthetists and 4 other professionals from five maternity units. Over 95% of participants agreed that the training was relevant and helpful for their clinical practice and improving outcomes following IFH. Confidence in technical and non-technical skills relating to managing IFH was variable before the training (5%-92% agreement with the pre-training statements), but improved in nearly all participants after the training (71%-100% agreement with the post-training statements). Participants and ethnographers reported that the training helped to: (i) better understand the complexity of IFH, (ii) recognise the need for multiprofessional training and management and (iii) optimise communication with those in labour and their birth partners. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated training package can improve self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence of multiprofessional teams involved in management of IFH at caesarean birth. A larger-scale evaluation is required to validate these findings and establish how best to scale and implement the training.

Changing estimates of leadership ability before a programme: retrospective self-assessments and response-shift bias.

BACKGROUND: Most evaluations of clinical leadership development programmes rely on self-assessments. Self-assessments are vulnerable to response-shift bias. Using retrospective then-tests may help to avoid this bias.In this study, we investigate whether post-programme then-tests (retrospective self-assessments) are more sensitive to change in clinical leadership development programme participants than traditional pre-programme pre-tests when paired with post-test self-assessments. METHODS: 17 healthcare professionals participated in an 8-month single-centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre-post pairs and then-post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel multimethod evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. RESULTS: A greater number of significant changes were detected using then-test pairs than pre-test pairs for both the PCQ (11 of 12 vs 4 of 12 items) and MLCFQ (7 of 7 vs 3 of 7 domains). The multimethods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. CONCLUSIONS: In ideal circumstances, both pre-test and then-test evaluations should be conducted. We cautiously suggest that if only one post-programme evaluation can be conducted, then-tests may be appropriate means of detecting change.

Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers.

Background: Biomedical scientists have become de facto leaders for their research teams. Theories of expert leadership suggest that the specialist knowledge and credibility these researcher-leaders bring to their roles can lead to improved performance. Formal leadership development for biomedical researchers remains uncommon, and it is unclear whether existing leadership development programmes achieve improved individual and organisational outcomes. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of a single centre leadership development programme for biomedical researchers using a mixed-methods approach. Methods: 26 biomedical researchers participated in an 8 month single centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre-post pairs and then-post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel mixed-methods evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. Results: There were significant increases in 3/7 domains and 1/5 tasks of leadership in the PCQ, in both pre-post and then-post paired assessments. There were statistically significant but small increases in 2/7 domains of the MLCFQ. The mixed-methods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. Participants said the programme was relevant, interesting and well-organised, with 63% reporting increased confidence and motivation. Participants had a significant change in behaviour, spending 1-2 hours per week on group projects, which were successfully implemented locally. 42% of participants expected these projects to continue beyond the programme. Discussion: This study demonstrates a local leadership programme can have positive impact within a biomedical research centre despite time and financial constraints. We encourage future studies to utilise a mixed-methods approach to evaluating the impact of leadership development programmes.

Transforming training into practice with the conflict management framework: a mixed methods study.

Objective: To implement and evaluate the use of the conflict management framework (CMF) in four tertiary UK paediatric services. Design: Mixed methods multisite evaluation including prospective pre and post intervention collection of conflict data alongside semistructured interviews. Setting: Eight inpatient or day care wards across four tertiary UK paediatric services. Interventions: The two-stage CMF was used in daily huddles to prompt the recognition and management of conflict. Results: Conflicts were recorded for a total of 67 weeks before and 141 weeks after implementation of the CMF across the four sites. 1000 episodes of conflict involving 324 patients/families across the four sites were recorded. After implementation of the CMF, time spent managing episodes of conflict around the care of a patient was decreased by 24% (p<0.001) (from 73 min to 55 min) and the estimated cost of this staff time decreased by 20% (p<0.02) (from £26 to £21 sterling per episode of conflict). This reduction occurred despite conflict episodes after implementation of the CMF having similar severity to those before implementation. Semistructured interviews highlighted the importance of broad multidisciplinary leadership and training to embed a culture of proactive and collaborative conflict management. Conclusions: The CMF offers an effective adjunct to conflict management training, reducing time spent managing conflict and the associated staff costs.

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

Evidence-based medical leadership development: a systematic review.

Health systems invest significant resources in leadership development for physicians and other health professionals. Competent leadership is considered vital for maintaining and improving quality and patient safety. We carried out this systematic review to synthesise new empirical evidence regarding medical leadership development programme factors which are associated with outcomes at the clinical and organisational levels. Using Ovid MEDLINE, we conducted a database search using both free text and Medical Subject Headings. We then conducted an extensive hand-search of references and of citations in known healthcare leadership development reviews. We applied the Medical Education Research Study Quality Indicator (MERSQI) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool to determine study reliability, and synthesised results using a meta-aggregation approach. 117 studies were included in this systematic review. 28 studies met criteria for higher reliability studies. The median critical appraisal score according to the MERSQI was 8.5/18 and the median critical appraisal score according to the JBI was 3/10. There were recurring causes of low study quality scores related to study design, data analysis and reporting. There was considerable heterogeneity in intervention design and evaluation design. Programmes with internal or mixed faculty were significantly more likely to report organisational outcomes than programmes with external faculty only (p=0.049). Project work and mentoring increased the likelihood of organisational outcomes. No leadership development content area was particularly associated with organisational outcomes. In leadership development programmes in healthcare, external faculty should be used to supplement in-house faculty and not be a replacement for in-house expertise. To facilitate organisational outcomes, interventions should include project work and mentoring. Educational methods appear to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific curriculum content. Improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.

A systematic review of leadership training for medical students.

BACKGROUND: Leadership is increasingly being recognised as an essential requirement for doctors. Many medical schools are in the process of developing formal leadership training programmes, but it remains to be elucidated what characteristics make such programmes effective, and to what extent current programmes are effective, beyond merely positive learner reactions. This review's objective was to investigate the effectiveness of undergraduate medical leadership curricula and to explore common features of effective curricula. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted. Articles describing and evaluating undergraduate medical leadership curricula were included. Outcomes were stratified and analysed according to a modified Kirkpatrick's model for evaluating educational outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. Leadership curricula evaluated were markedly heterogeneous in their duration and composition. The majority of studies utilised pre- and post- intervention questionnaires for evaluation. Two studies described randomised controlled trials with objective measures. Outcomes were broadly positive. Only one study reported neutral outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of leadership curricula have shown subjective effectiveness, including short interventions. There is limited objective evidence however, and few studies have measured effectiveness at the system and patient levels. Further research is needed investigating objective and downstream outcomes, and use of standard frameworks for evaluation will facilitate effective comparison of initiatives.