Dataset Information

Medical leaders or masters?-A systematic review of medical leadership in hospital settings.

ABSTRACT: Medical leadership is increasingly considered as crucial for improving the quality of care and the sustainability of healthcare. However, conceptual clarity is lacking in the literature and in practice. Therefore, a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to reveal the different conceptualizations of medical leadership in terms of definitions, roles and activities, and personal-and context-specific features. Eight databases were systematically searched for eligible studies, including empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals that included physicians carrying out a manager or leadership role in a hospital setting. Finally, 34 articles were included and their findings were synthesized and analyzed narratively. Medical leadership is conceptualized in literature either as physicians with formal managerial roles or physicians who act as informal 'leaders' in daily practices. In both forms, medical leaders must carry out general management and leadership activities and acts to balance between management and medicine, because these physicians must accomplish both organizational and medical staff objectives. To perform effectively, credibility among medical peers appeared to be the most important factor, followed by a scattered list of fields of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Competing logics, role ambiguity and a lack of time and support were perceived as barriers. However, the extent to which physicians must master all elicited features, remains ambiguous. Furthermore, the extent to which medical leadership entails a shift or a reallocation of tasks that are at the core of medical professional work remains unclear. Future studies should implement stronger research designs in which more theory is used to study the effect of medical leadership on professional work, medical staff governance, and subsequently, the quality and efficiency of care.

SUBMITTER: Berghout MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5598981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrustful relationships play a vital role in successful organisations and well-functioning hospitals. While the trust relationship between patients and providers has been widely studied, trust relations between healthcare professionals and their supervisors have not been emphasised. A systematic literature review was conducted to map and provide an overview of the characteristics of trustworthy management in a hospital setting.MethodsWe searched Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, EconLit, Taylor & Francis Online, SAGE Journals and Springer Link from database inception up until Aug 9, 2021. Empirical studies written in English undertaken in a hospital or similar setting and addressed trust relationships between healthcare professionals and their supervisors were included, without date restrictions. Records were independently screened for eligibility by two researchers. One researcher extracted the data and another one checked the correctness. A narrative approach, which involves textual and tabular summaries of findings, was undertaken in synthesising and analysing the data. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two researchers using two critical appraisal tools. Most of the included studies were assessed as acceptable, with some associated risk of bias.ResultsOf 7414 records identified, 18 were included. 12 were quantitative papers and 6 were qualitative. The findings were conceptualised in two categories that were associated with trust in management, namely leadership behaviours and organisational factors. Most studies (n = 15) explored the former, while the rest (n = 3) additionally explored the latter. Leadership behaviours most commonly associated with employee's trust in their supervisors include (a) different facets of ethical leadership, such as integrity, moral leadership and fairness; (b) caring for employee's well-being conceptualised as benevolence, supportiveness and showing concern and (c) the manager's availability measured as being accessible and approachable. Additionally, four studies found that leaders' competence were related to perceptions of trust. Empowering work environments were most commonly associated with trust in management.ConclusionsEthical leadership, caring for employees' well-being, manager's availability, competence and an empowering work environment are characteristics associated with trustworthy management. Future research could explore the interplay between leadership behaviours and organisational factors in eliciting trust in management.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Wearable technologies provide users hands-free access to computer functions and are becoming increasingly popular on both the consumer market and in various industries. The medical industry has pioneered research and implementation of head-mounted wearable devices, such as Google Glass. Most of this research has focused on surgical interventions; however, other medical fields have begun to explore the potential of this technology to support both patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to systematically evaluate the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of using Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings and to determine the benefits, limitations, and future directions of its application. METHODS:This review covers literature published between January 2013 and May 2017. Searches included PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, INSPEC (Ebsco), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), IEEE Explore, Web of Science, Scopus, and Compendex. The search strategy sought all articles on Google Glass. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed full-text articles, and extracted data from articles that met all predefined criteria. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation by the senior author. Included studies were original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings. The preferred reporting results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for reporting of results. RESULTS:Of the 852 records examined, 51 met all predefined criteria, including patient-centered (n=21) and clinician-centered studies (n=30). Patient-centered studies explored the utility of Google Glass in supporting patients with motor impairments (n=8), visual impairments (n=5), developmental and psychiatric disorders (n=2), weight management concerns (n=3), allergies (n=1), or other health concerns (n=2). Clinician-centered studies explored the utility of Google Glass in student training (n=9), disaster relief (n=4), diagnostics (n=2), nursing (n=1), autopsy and postmortem examination (n=1), wound care (n=1), behavioral sciences (n=1), and various medical subspecialties, including, cardiology (n=3), radiology (n=3), neurology (n=1), anesthesiology (n=1), pulmonology (n=1), toxicology (n=1), and dermatology (n=1). Most of the studies were conducted in the United States (40/51, 78%), did not report specific age information for participants (38/51, 75%), had sample size <30 participants (29/51, 57%), and were pilot or feasibility studies (31/51, 61%). Most patient-centered studies (19/21, 90%) demonstrated feasibility with high satisfaction and acceptability among participants, despite a few technical challenges with the device. A number of clinician-centered studies (11/30, 37%) reported low to moderate satisfaction among participants, with the most promising results being in the area of student training. Studies varied in sample size, approach for implementation of Google Glass, and outcomes assessment. CONCLUSIONS:The use of Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings varied. More promising results regarding the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of using Google Glass were seen in patient-centered studies and student training settings. Further research evaluating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Google Glass as an intervention to improve important clinical outcomes is warranted.

Dataset Information

Medical leaders or masters?-A systematic review of medical leadership in hospital settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets