Search results

Building leadership skills among faculty in academic medicine is essential, yet professional development programs focused on leadership are not always attentive to the needs of faculty on diverse career pathways or at differing career stages—nor are they often rigorously assessed. Evaluations commonly focus on participant satisfaction and short-term learning but not behavior change and institutional impact, which are difficult to assess but arguably more meaningful. Given the substantial time and money invested in these programs, more rigorous evaluation is critical.

The authors evaluated an intensive, shared leadership-focused training program for early-career and mid-career faculty, offered by the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine over the course of a year. They administered a pre/post-program assessment of confidence in key skill areas, and conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 participants between 1–4 years after program completion.

Participants in both programs showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) on every item measured in the pre/post-test. Analysis of the interviews revealed indications of substantial behavior change as well as institutional impact. The evaluation also suggested particular benefits for female professionals.

The authors conducted a long-term assessment of leadership training focused on career pathway and career stage and found that it (a) prompted both positive behavioral change and institutional impact and (b) suggested benefits for female faculty in particular, which could potentially help to eliminate gender-based disparities in leadership in academic medical centers.

A method to engage salient organisational stakeholders in identifying and ranking measures of healthcare improvement programs is described. The method is illustrated using Executive WalkRounds (EWRs) in a multi-site Australian Health District.

Subject matter experts (SMEs) conducted document analysis, identified potential EWRs measures, created driver diagrams and then eliminated weak measures. Next, a panel of executives skilled in EWRs ranked and ratified the potential measures using a modified Delphi technique.

EWRs measurement selection demonstrated the feasibility of the method. Of the total time to complete the method 79% was contributed by SMEs, 14% by administration personnel and 7% by executives. Document analysis revealed three main EWRs aims. Ten of 28 potential measures were eliminated by the SME review. After repeated Delphi rounds the executive panel achieved consensus (75% cut-off) on seven measures. One outcome, one process and one implementation fidelity metric were selected to measure and monitor the impact of EWRs in the health district.

Perceptions of weak relationships between measures and intended improvements can lead to practitioner scepticism. This work offers a structured method to combine the technical expertise of SMEs with the practical knowledge of healthcare staff in selecting improvement measures.

This research describes and demonstrates a novel method to systematically leverage formal and practical types of expertise to select measures that are strongly linked to local quality improvement goals. The method can be applied in diverse healthcare settings.