Dataset Information

Working better together: joint leadership development for doctors and managers.

ABSTRACT: Traditionally, there have been tensions between frontline healthcare professionals and managers, with well-known stereotypes of difficult consultants and pen-pushing managers. Many junior doctors have limited management experience and have often never even met a manager prior to taking on a consultant role. Based on a successful programme pioneered by Dr Robert Klaber (Imperial, London) we have set-up an innovative scheme for Birmingham Children's Hospital, pairing junior doctors and managers to learn and work together. Our aim was to cultivate positive attitudes and understanding between the two groups, break down inter-professional barriers, and to provide practical leadership experience and education. We recruited 60 managers and doctors to participate in shadowing, conversation, and quality improvement projects. Thought-provoking online materials, blogs, socials, and popular monthly workshops consisting of patient-focused debate and discussion around key leadership themes, have helped to support learning and cement shared values. Formal evaluation has demonstrated an improvement in how participants perceive their knowledge and ability based on key NHS Leadership Framework competencies. Participant feedback has been extremely positive, and everyone plans to continue to incorporate Paired Learning into their continuing professional development. We are now embedding Paired Learning in the on-going educational programme offered at Birmingham Children's Hospital, whilst looking at extending the scheme to include different professional groups and other trusts across the region and nationally.

SUBMITTER: Kelly N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4949619 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Working better together: joint leadership development for doctors and managers.

Kelly Nicola N

BMJ quality improvement reports 20141009 1

Traditionally, there have been tensions between frontline healthcare professionals and managers, with well-known stereotypes of difficult consultants and pen-pushing managers. Many junior doctors have limited management experience and have often never even met a manager prior to taking on a consultant role. Based on a successful programme pioneered by Dr Robert Klaber (Imperial, London) we have set-up an innovative scheme for Birmingham Children's Hospital, pairing junior doctors and managers to ...[more]

PMID: 27493738

Similar Datasets

Project description:Leadership is a key feature in implementation efforts, which is highlighted in most implementation frameworks. However, in studying leadership and implementation, only few studies rely on established leadership theory, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding what kinds of leadership managers should perform and under what circumstances. In industrial and organizational psychology, transformational leadership and contingent reward have been identified as effective leadership styles for facilitating change processes, and these styles map well onto the behaviors identified in implementation research. However, it has been questioned whether these general leadership styles are sufficient to foster specific results; it has therefore been suggested that the leadership should be specific to the domain of interest, e.g., implementation. To this end, an intervention specifically involving leadership, which we call implementation leadership, is developed and tested in this project. The aim of the intervention is to increase healthcare managers' generic implementation leadership skills, which they can use for any implementation efforts in the future.The intervention is conducted in healthcare in Stockholm County, Sweden, where first- and second-line managers were invited to participate. Two intervention groups are included, including 52 managers. Intervention group 1 consists of individual managers, and group 2 of managers from one division. A control group of 39 managers is additionally included. The intervention consists of five half-day workshops aiming at increasing the managers' implementation leadership, which is the primary outcome of this intervention. The intervention will be evaluated through a mixed-methods approach. A pre- and post-design applying questionnaires at three time points (pre-, directly after the intervention, and 6 months post-intervention) will be used, in addition to process evaluation questionnaires related to each workshop. In addition, interviews will be conducted over time to evaluate the intervention.The proposed intervention represents a novel contribution to the implementation literature, being the first to focus on strengthening healthcare managers' generic skills in implementation leadership.

Project description:IntroductionDespite common assumptions that doctors are well placed to lead hospitals and healthcare organisations, the peer-reviewed literature contains little evidence on the performance of doctors in leadership roles in comparison with that of non-medical managers.ObjectivesTo determine whether there is an association between the leader's medical background and management performance in terms of organisational performance or patient outcomes.MethodsWe searched for peer-reviewed, English language studies using Medline, Embase and Emerald Management between 2005 and 2017. We included quantitative, qualitative and mixed method empirical studies on the performance of senior healthcare managers where participants were described as doctors or leaders and where comparative performance data were provided on non-medical leaders. Studies without full text available, or no organisational, leadership behaviour or patient measures, were excluded.ResultsThe search, conducted in Medline (n=3395), Embase (n=1913) and Emerald Management (n=454) databases, yielded 3926 entries. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies remained. Twelve studies found that there were positive differences between medical and non-medical leaders, and eight studies correlated those findings with hospital performance or patient outcomes. Six studies examined the composition of boards of directors; otherwise, there were few common areas of investigation. Five inter-related themes emerged from a narrative analysis: the impact of medical leadership on outcomes; doctors on boards; contribution of qualifications and experience; the medical leader as an individual or part of a team and doctors transitioning into the medical leadership role.Discussion and conclusionA modest body of evidence supports the importance of including doctors on organisational governing boards. Despite many published articles on the topic of whether hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors, there were few empirical studies that directly compared the performance of medical and non-medical managers. This is an under-researched area that requires further funding and focus.

Project description:BackgroundMental-physical multi-morbidities pose challenges for primary care services that traditionally focus on single diseases. Collaborative care models encourage inter-professional working to deliver better care for patients with multiple chronic conditions, such as depression and long-term physical health problems. Successive trials from the United States have shown that collaborative care effectively improves depression outcomes, even in people with long-term conditions (LTCs), but little is known about how to implement collaborative care in the United Kingdom. The aim of the study was to explore the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in a naturalistic National Health Service setting.MethodsA naturalistic pilot study of collaborative care was undertaken in North West England. Primary care mental health professionals from IAPT (Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies) services and general practice nurses were trained to collaboratively identify and manage patients with co-morbid depression and long-term conditions. Qualitative interviews were performed with health professionals at the beginning and end of the pilot phase. Normalization Process Theory guided analysis.ResultsHealth professionals adopted limited elements of the collaborative care model in practice. Although benefits of co-location in primary care practices were reported, including reduced stigma of accessing mental health treatment and greater ease of disposal for identified patients, existing norms around the division of mental and physical health work in primary care were maintained, limiting integration of the mental health practitioners into the practice setting. Neither the mental health practitioners nor the practice nurses perceived benefits to joint management of patients.ConclusionsEstablished divisions between mental and physical health may pose particular challenges for multi-morbidity service delivery models such as collaborative care. Future work should explore patient perspectives about whether greater inter-professional working enhances experiences of care. The study demonstrates that research into implementation of novel treatments must consider how the introduction of innovation can be balanced with the need for integration into existing practice.

Dataset Information

Working better together: joint leadership development for doctors and managers.

Publications

Working better together: joint leadership development for doctors and managers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets