Dataset Information

Advancing Health Equity Through Equity-Centered Leadership Development with Interprofessional Healthcare Teams.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Events of spring 2020-the COVID19 pandemic and re-birth of a social justice movement-have thrown disparities in disease risk, morbidity, and mortality in sharp relief. In response, healthcare organizations have shifted attentions and resources towards equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) issues and initiatives like never before. Focused, proven equity-centered skill and mindset development is needed for healthcare professionals to operationalize these pledges and stated aims.

Aim

This article highlights program evaluation results for this Clinical Scholars National Leadership Institute (CSNLI) specific to EDI. We will show that CSNLI imparts the valuable and essential skills to health professionals that are needed to realize health equity through organizational and system change.

Setting

Initial cohort of 29 participants in CSNLI, engaging in the program over 3 years through in-person and distance-based learning offerings and activities.

Program description

The CSNLI is a 3-year, intensive leadership program that centers EDI skill development across personal, interpersonal, organizational, and systems domains through its design, competencies, and curriculum.

Program evaluation

A robust evaluation following the Kirkpatrick Model offers analysis of four data collecting activities related to program participants' EDI learning, behavioral change, and results.

Discussion

Over the course of the program, participants made significant gains in competencies related to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Furthermore, participants demonstrated growth in behavior change and leadership activities in the areas of organizational and system change. Results demonstrate the need to center both leader and leadership development on equity, diversity, and inclusion curriculum to make real change in the US Healthcare System.

SUBMITTER: Corbie G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9165542 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.BackgroundDespite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.MethodsA qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.FindingsA total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare systems invest in leadership development of surgeons, surgical trainees, and teams. However, there is no agreement on how interventions should be designed, or what components they must contain to be successful. The objective of this realist review was to generate a programme theory explaining in which context and for whom surgical leadership interventions work and why.MethodsFive databases were systematically searched, and articles screened against inclusion considering their relevance. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and fragments of CMOCs were identified. Gaps in the CMOCs were filled through deliberation with the research team and stakeholder feedback. We identified patterns between CMOCs and causal relationships to create a programme theory.ResultsThirty-three studies were included and 19 CMOCs were developed. Findings suggests that interventions for surgeons and surgical teams improve leadership if timely feedback is delivered on multiple occasions and by trusted and respected people. Negative feedback is best provided privately. Feedback from senior-to-junior or peer-to-peer should be delivered directly, whereas feedback from junior-to-senior is preferred when delivered anonymously. Leadership interventions were shown to be most effective for those with awareness of the importance of leadership, those with confidence in their technical surgical skills, and those with identified leadership deficits. For interventions to improve leadership in surgery, they need to be delivered in an intimate learning environment, consider implementing a speak-up culture, provide a variety of interactive learning activities, show a genuine investment in the intervention, and be customised to the needs of surgeons. Leadership of surgical teams can be best developed by enabling surgical teams to train together.ConclusionsThe programme theory provides evidence-based guidance for those who are designing, developing and implementing leadership interventions in surgery. Adopting the recommendations will help to ensure interventions are acceptable to the surgical community and successful in improving surgical leadership.Trial registrationThe review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021230709).