On leadership and service during medical training

Establishing Competencies for Leadership Development for Postgraduate Internal Medicine Residents

BACKGROUND

Although graduate medical education accrediting bodies recognize the importance of leadership for residents and encourage curricular development, it remains unclear which competencies are most important for early career physicians to possess.

OBJECTIVE

To generate a prioritized list of essential postgraduate leadership competencies to inform best practices for future curricular development.

METHODS

In 2019, we used a Delphi approach, which allows for generation of consensus, to survey internal medicine (IM) physicians in leadership roles with expertise in medical education and/or leadership programming within national professional societies. Panelists ranked a comprehensive list of established leadership competencies for health care professionals, across 3 established domains (character, emotional intelligence, and cognitive skills), on importance for categorical IM residents to perform by the end of residency. Respondents also identified number of content hours and pedagogical format best suited to teach each skill.

RESULTS

Sixteen and 14 panelists participated in Delphi rounds 1 and 2, respectively (88% response rate). Most were female (71%) and senior (64% in practice > 15 years, 57% full professor). All practiced in academic environments and all US regions were represented. The final consensus list included 12 "essential" and 9 "very important" leadership skills across all 3 leadership domains. Emotional intelligence and character domains were equally represented in the consensus list despite being disproportionately underweighted initially. Panelists most frequently recommended content delivery via mentorship/coaching, work-based reflection, and interactive discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's results suggest that postgraduate curricular interventions should emphasize emotional intelligence and character domains of leadership and prioritize coaching, discussion, and reflection for delivery.

Leadership Development in Postgraduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate and interpret evidence relevant to leadership curricula in postgraduate medical education (PGME) to better understand leadership development in residency training.

METHOD

The authors conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed, English-language articles from four databases published between 1980 and May 2, 2017 that describe specific interventions aimed at leadership development. They characterized the educational setting, curricular format, learner level, instructor type, pedagogical methods, conceptual leadership framework (including intervention domain), and evaluation outcomes. They used Kirkpatrick effectiveness scores and Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Quality of Evidence scores to assess the quality of the interventions.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria. The classroom setting was the most common educational setting (described in 17 articles). Most curricula (described in 13 articles) were isolated, with all curricula ranging from three hours to five years. The most common instructor type was clinical faculty (13 articles). The most commonly used pedagogical method was small group/discussion, followed by didactic teaching (described in, respectively, 15 and 14 articles). Study authors evaluated both pre/post surveys of participant perceptions (n = 7) and just postintervention surveys (n = 10). The average Kirkpatrick Effectiveness score was 1.0. The average BEME Quality of Evidence score was 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The results revealed that interventions for developing leadership during PGME lack grounding conceptual leadership frameworks, provide poor evaluation outcomes, and focus primarily on cognitive leadership domains. Medical educators should design future leadership interventions grounded in established conceptual frameworks and pursue a comprehensive approach that includes character development and emotional intelligence.

Design, implementation, and demographic differences of HEAL: a self-report health care leadership instrument

The medical community has recognized the importance of leadership skills among its members. While numerous leadership assessment tools exist at present, few are specifically tailored to the unique health care environment. The study team designed a 24-item survey (Healthcare Evaluation & Assessment of Leadership [HEAL]) to measure leadership competency based on the core competencies and core principles of the Duke Healthcare Leadership Model. A novel digital platform was created for use on handheld devices to facilitate its distribution and completion. This pilot phase involved 126 health care professionals self-assessing their leadership abilities. The study aimed to determine both the content validity of the survey and the feasibility of its implementation and use. The digital platform for survey implementation was easy to complete, and there were no technical problems with survey use or data collection. With regard to reliability, initial survey results revealed that each core leadership tenet met or exceeded the reliability cutoff of 0.7. In self-assessment of leadership, women scored themselves higher than men in questions related to patient centeredness (P=0.016). When stratified by age, younger providers rated themselves lower with regard to emotional intelligence and integrity. There were no differences in self-assessment when stratified by medical specialty. While only a pilot study, initial data suggest that HEAL is a reliable and easy-to-administer survey for health care leadership assessment. Differences in responses by sex and age with respect to patient centeredness, integrity, and emotional intelligence raise questions about how providers view themselves amid complex medical teams. As the survey is refined and further administered, HEAL will be used not only as a self-assessment tool but also in “360” evaluation formats.