40 The qualities of a good leader: views of junior doctors
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Introduction</h3> There is a growing emphasis on developing effective leadership within healthcare, including better training and support for clinical leaders.<sup>1</sup> The views and experiences of senior NHS leaders have recently been explored<sup>2 3</sup>; however, junior doctors remain an untapped resource. In order to develop our trainees into future clinical leaders, it is important to explore their current understanding of leadership. <h3>Methods</h3> We surveyed 97 junior doctors at a teaching hospital in Devon. Respondents identified skills and qualities they associated with good leadership and also described how they exhibit leadership during daily practice. The free-text responses received were then appraised within contemporary leadership theory. Respondents were mainly aged 21–30, FY1 - CT2 trainees and from General Practice, Medical Training (Core & Specialty) and Obstetrics and Gynaecology programmes. <h3>Results</h3> Juniors’ definitions of effective clinical leadership valued communication and teamwork skills over more technical proficiencies. Approachability and inclusivity were also highly valued, along with attributes associated with compassion, the development of others, consultative leadership and active followership. The junior doctors surveyed described their personal clinical leadership as a network of relationships and connections rather than single projects or set hierarchical roles. However, many failed to identify any examples of personal leadership, citing a lack of experience and isolated working in community settings. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This survey has explored junior doctors’ perceptions and experiences of leadership. Trainees valued collaboration skills and characteristics associated with the creation of a strong social identity, active followership and distributive leadership.<sup>4</sup> These align with a transformational leadership style, compared with the more traditional, transactional leadership approach favoured during a study of their peers over a decade ago.<sup>5</sup> <h3>References</h3> Warren OJ, Carnall R. Medical leadership: why it’s important, what is required and how we develop it. <i>Postgrad Med J</i> 2011;<b>87</b>:27–32. https://pmj.bmj.com/content/postgradmedj/87/1023/27.full.pdf Nicol ED, Mohanna K, Cowpe J. Perspectives on clinical leadership: a qualitative study exploring the views of senior healthcare leaders in the UK. <i>Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine</i> 2014;<b>107</b>(7):277–286. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076814527274 Timmins N. The chief executive’s tale: views from the front line of the NHS. <i>The King’s Fund</i> 2016, May 10. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/The-chief-executive-tale-Kings-Fund-May-2016.pdf Haslam SA, Reicher S, Platow MJ. (2011). New York, NY: Psychology Press. http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781841696102/Sample_CHPT_9781841696102.pdf Palmer R, Cragg R, Wall D, Wilkie V. Team and leadership styles of junior doctors. <i>International Journal of Clinical Leadership</i> 2008;<b>16</b>(3):131–135. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=1757207X&AN=47155596&h=0FEemBZ8QKBpo9AhjNRy2qZ8EremAggmg2mmR03k36zyWniYAj2ySa8iESPpl%2fFkJMjQS6Do1GgvF6ZwOo51Gw%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d1757207X%26AN%3d47155596
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 découle