Residents as Leaders: A Comprehensive Guide to Establishing a Leadership Development Program for Postgraduate Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This document is written for teachers and organizers of physician leadership development programs, specifically those programs aimed at residents or fellows in training. It describes a leadership development program aimed at postgraduate trainees and includes the application and selection process, the curriculum, and the framework used to evaluate the program and assess participants' reaction, learning, and behavior outcomes. Methods The Residents as Leaders program (RaLs) consists of a 5-day face-to-face course followed by a longitudinal leadership practical experience. Program organizers are in contact with the trainees in advance of the 5-day course to guide them in elaborating their leadership project. The course is held off-site and trainees are excused of all clinical responsibility, including call duties, during this time to allow them to fully focus on the leadership development activities. Over the subsequent 12 months, trainees carry out their project and complete brief periodic activities based on that work intended to guide their project development and prompt reflection on leadership skill development. The program was first offered in 2009 to 12 participants. In total, the 115 participants have ranged from PGY1 through to fellowship and represent 29 different specialty and subspecialty postgraduate programs (including family medicine). Results The program evaluation is ongoing. Data analysis to date documents high levels of participant and speaker satisfaction with the course. The pre/post self-assessment of leadership knowledge and skills demonstrates significant enhancement in all categories. The survey conducted three months after the course confirms an overall improvement in knowledge and skills, with more that 80% of respondents rating their level of improvement as some or significant. The majority of respondents at three months had applied their new skills. Barriers and facilitators to the application of leadership skills were primarily the lack of opportunity and systems and processes within the organization. Approximately 75% of the last two cohorts' participants completed the project requirement. Discussion The course has been well received, has ongoing support of the Faculty, the program directors and the participants and has required few modifications over seven cohorts of evaluation and feedback. The program is resource intensive and offered to a highly selected number of participants. We are exploring options to create modules from individual course offerings which may extend the reach of the material to residency programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.038 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".