Leadership Training in Graduate Medical Education: Time for a Requirement?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The need for all physicians to function as leaders in their various roles is becoming more widely recognized. There are increasing opportunities for physicians at all levels including Graduate Medical Education (GME) to gain leadership skills, but most of these opportunities are only for those interested. Although not an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement, some US graduate medical education programs have incorporated leadership training into their curricula. Interestingly, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada adopted the Leader role in its 2015 CanMEDS physician training model and requires leadership training. We sought to understand the value of a leadership training program in residency in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our 2017 pilot leadership training program for senior military internal medicine residents consisted of four one-hour sessions of mini-lectures, self-assessments, case discussions, and small group activities. The themes were: Introduction to Leadership, Emotional Intelligence, Teambuilding, and Conflict Management. Participants were given an 18-question survey (14 Likert scale multiple-choice questions and 4 open-ended response questions) to provide feedback about the course. The Brooke Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board approved this project as a Quality Improvement effort. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 48.1% (26 of 54). The majority of respondents (84.6%) agreed the leadership training sessions were helpful and relevant. Following the sessions, 80.8% saw a greater role for physicians to function as leaders. Most (88.4%) agreed that these sessions helped them understand the importance of their roles as leaders, with 80.8% feeling more empowered to be leaders in their areas, 76.9% gaining a better understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses as leaders, and 80.8% feeling better prepared to meet challenges in the future. After exposure to leadership training, 73.1% indicated a plan to pursue additional leadership development opportunities. All respondents agreed that internists should be able to lead and manage a clinical team, and every respondent agreed that leadership principles should be taught in residency. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot project supports the premise that leadership training should be integrated into GME. Initial results suggest training can improve leadership skills and inspire trainees to seek additional leadership education. Moreover, much like the published literature, residents believe they should learn about leadership during residency. While more effort is needed to determine the best approach to deliver and evaluate this content, it appears even small interventions can make a difference. Next steps for this program include developing assessment tools for observation of leadership behaviors during routine GME activities, which would allow for reinforcement of the principles being taught. Additionally, our experience has led our institution to make leadership training a requirement in all of our GME programs, and we look forward to reporting future progress. Finally, an ACGME requirement to incorporate leadership training into GME programs nationwide would prove useful, as doing so would reinforce its importance, accelerate implementation, and expand knowledge of best approaches on a national level.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,085 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,044 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».