Advancing Leadership Skills: A Multiyear Examination of LEND Trainee Self-Efficacy Growth

Changes in LEND trainees' understanding and application of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice principles

Objectives

To assess changes in trainees' knowledge and application of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) concepts after participating in a midwestern academic medical center Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) program. LEND is a federally funded year-long program training individuals of various disciplines (e.g., speech pathology, family advocacy, psychology) to better support the health of individuals with disabilities.

Methods

Trainees (n = 46) answered questions about their knowledge and application of DEIJ topics before and after program participation in 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. Changes in trainees' responses were examined using paired-samples t-tests.

Results

Thirty-six (78%) participants identified as White, 7 (15%) as Black, 2 (4%) as Asian, and 2 (4%) as more than one race. Three (7%) participants identified as Hispanic/Latino. Over the one-year program, trainees' perceived knowledge increased [t(45) = 5.84, p < .001, Mdiff = .59, Cohen's D = 0.86]. Regarding articulating definitions of DEIJ terms, trainees' summed scores following program participation also improved [t(45) = 4.71, p < .001, Mdiff  = 2.37, Cohen's D = 0.70]. However, their comfort with addressing prejudicial statements and discussing and combating "-isms" (application of DEIJ skills) did not increase [t(45) = 1.74, p = .09, Mdiff  = 0.17, Cohen's D = 0.26].

Conclusions for practice

LEND program participation positively impacted trainees' perceived DEIJ knowledge and ability to define DEIJ terms. However, future refinements to the curriculum will be needed to improve trainees' application of skills and to develop a more nuanced understanding of equity, intersectionality, inclusion, and belonging.

Measuring LEND Core Competencies Using Trainee Follow-Up Surveys

OBJECTIVES

Measuring the value-added impact of Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities and Related Disorders (LEND) training on trainees' leadership and career trajectories is necessary to understand program efficacy. In the current study, we leveraged an existing ex post facto design to develop and test a new measure of LEND competencies and compare outcomes of LEND trainees and comparison peers.

METHODS

We developed the LEND Outcomes Follow-Up Survey using a multi-step, mixed methods process. A series of focus groups and consultations with key stakeholders identified eight important LEND leadership outcomes: (1) interdisciplinary work; (2) advocacy; (3) intersectional approach; (4) systems perspective; (5) life course perspective; (6) leadership; (7) engagement with maternal and child health populations; and (8) research experience. We developed and piloted this novel survey to measure these LEND leadership outcomes. We used data collected from this novel measure and an existing survey that is used nationally by LEND, to compare the outcomes of 43 LEND trainees and 30 comparison peers at two years post completion of LEND training.

RESULTS

We found that, compared to comparison peers, LEND trainees: (1) worked with a greater number of disciplines; (2) were more likely to be engaged in advocacy; (3) were more likely to utilize a systems perspective in their work; (4) were more likely to work with maternal and child health populations; and (5) were more likely to have experience conducting research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested that LEND training improves LEND leadership outcomes at two years post-completion of LEND training.

Leadership Development Strategies in Interprofessional Healthcare Collaboration: A Rapid Review

Background

Contemporary healthcare practitioners require leadership skills for a variety of professional roles related to improved patient/client outcomes, heightened personal and professional development, as well as strengthened interprofessional collaboration and teamwork.

Objective/Aim

The aim of this study is to systematically catalogue literature on leadership in healthcare practice and education to highlight the leadership characteristics and skills required by healthcare practitioners for collaborative interprofessional service delivery and the leadership development strategies found to be effective.

Methods/Design

A rapid review was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) diagram shows that the 11 databases, yielded 465 records. A total of 147 records were removed during the initial screening phase. The remaining 318 records were uploaded onto Rayyan, an online collaborative review platform. Following abstract level screening, a further 236 records were removed with 82 records meeting the eligibility criteria at full text level, of which 42 were included in the data extraction. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal.

Results

Results showed variability in methodologies used, representing various healthcare disciplines with a range in population size (n = 6 to n = 537). Almost half of the results reported on new programs, with interprofessional collaboration and teamwork being the most frequently mentioned strategies. The training content, strategies used as well as the length of training varied. There were five outcomes which showed positive change, namely skills, knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and satisfaction.

Conclusion

This rapid review provided an evidence-base, highlighted by qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research, which presents distinct opportunities for curriculum development by focusing on both content and the methods needed for leadership programs. Anchoring this evidence-base within a systematic search of the extant literature provides increased precision for curriculum development.

A Quality Improvement Network for Interdisciplinary Training in Developmental Disabilities

Children with developmental disabilities (DD), such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), have complex health and developmental needs that require multiple service systems and interactions with various professionals across disciplines. The growing number of children and youth identified with ASD or DD, including anxiety and depression, has increased demand for services and need for highly qualified pediatric providers. Federally funded Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and related Disabilities (LEND) programs across the United States address today's health care shortages by providing comprehensive, interdisciplinary training to providers from multiple pediatric disciplines who screen, diagnose, and treat those with ASD and DD. Each LEND program develops training methods independently, including quality improvement efforts. In 2014, LEND programs began designing and validating common measures to evaluate LEND training. The LEND Program Quality Improvement (LPQI) Network was established in 2016. Participating LEND programs in the LPQI Network administer validated trainee self-report and faculty-observation measures that address skills in key competency domains of Interdisciplinary or Interprofessional Team Building, Family-Professional Partnerships, and Policy. This study reports data from faculty and trainees from 22 LEND programs that participated in the LPQI Network across the 5-year data collection period. The main outcome of this study was the change in trainee knowledge, skills, and attitudes scores in key competency domains across programs. Overall, trainees made significant knowledge, skills, and attitude gains based on both self-report and faculty observation scores for all 3 competency domains. Data demonstrate the value of LEND programs and feasibility of a national quality improvement approach to evaluate interdisciplinary training and systems-level improvement.

Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being

BACKGROUND

Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.

A model to evaluate interprofessional training effectiveness: feasibility and five-year outcomes of a multi-site prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the impact of interdisciplinary training programs is highly desirable and needed. However, there are currently no established methods to prospectively assess long-term outcomes of trainees compared to individuals who did not receive training. Our objective was to test the feasibility of a longitudinal, prospective cohort design to evaluate training outcomes, and to use this method to evaluate Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities and Related Disorders (LEND) training outcomes.

METHODS

LEND trainees were matched to comparison peers and followed annually for up to five years using a pre-existing outcomes survey. We assessed study feasibility using recruitment and retention data over five years. We then looked at preliminary efficacy of LEND training in LEND trainees compared to comparison peers using the pre-existing outcomes survey.

RESULTS

Overall, 68.3% of eligible trainees participated in the Outcomes Study across five years, and 66.0% were matched to comparison peers. On average, 84.4% of LEND trainees and 79.9% of comparison peers completed the outcomes survey annually. Attrition was low at 0.9% for LEND trainees and 2.6% for comparison peers over five years. LEND training demonstrated preliminary efficacy in promoting leadership development: LEND trainees began their careers engaged in more leadership activities than comparison peers, and the rate of growth in their participation in leadership activities was greater.

CONCLUSIONS

The design used to assess outcomes is a feasible approach that can be widely used to assess training program outcomes. Analyses suggest that LEND training is efficacious in increasing involvement in leadership activities over time after graduation.

Effectiveness of Interdisciplinary Leadership Training for Early Career Professionals in the Field of Developmental Disabilities

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to describe the curriculum and self-reported outcomes on measures of interdisciplinary leadership skills for work within the field of developmental disabilities from trainees in one interprofessional training program.

METHODS

The paper highlights one program's curriculum and strategy for capturing self-report survey measures from trainees in cohorts from 2014-2018 (n = 86) on two surveys (Interdisciplinary Attitudes and Skills and Leadership Self-Evaluation Form) and three time points across the training year: before training (T1), mid-year (T2), and after training (T3).

RESULTS

Data from 86 trainees are reported including demographics (nearly 80% white, 92% female), non-descriptive statistics due to non-normative samples, and tertiles demonstrating changes between time points. Significant differences between medians are reported between T1-T3 specifically related to utilizing interdisciplinary skills and gains in leadership competencies. Specific utilization of skills was reported to be 'Greatly' attributable to the LEND program related to sharing ideas and asking for help across disciplines.

DISCUSSION

Trainees' self-report from before training to after training indicates an increase in competence and utilization of interdisciplinary skills to be expected from participation in the curriculum. Self-report measures are.