Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue is the third in a series to spotlight medical leadership and management.The series is an initiative of the World Federation of Medical Managers and is supported by the Emerald Publishing Group.In this third issue, we present papers from Canada, Wales, The Netherlands, Australia and the USA.Physician leadership in context is the strongest theme in papers exploring health reform, i.e. leadership development within medical disciplines, in multidisciplinary health-care teams and through international collaborations.Shared leadership, both in the context of intra-organization and inter-organizational activities, and the effective application of frameworks for developing leadership are strong supporting themes.Turner et al. explored the literature about discipline-specific curricula for leadership within medical specialty training programs.The author suggests that "evaluation to assess the impact of discipline-tailored curricula over more generic learning statements and programmes is required".Turner qualifies that statement, arguing that this evaluation should include examination of the effects of leadership training interventions on patientfocused outcomes.Busari et al. examined leadership in the context of interprofessional teams.Busari's use of focus groups and interviews to conclude leadership is shared and adaptive to fit team membership and circumstances.The author proposes a collaborative understanding of clinical leadership and advocates stronger leadership skills development among resident physicians in preparation for reform impact.Supporting this professional development theme, Dickson and Van Aerde described the development of the LEADS in a Caring Environment Capabilities Framework, developed and used in Canada, to stimulate systemwide leadership development.Many Canadian health organizations have endorsed LEADS as providing a common language and a set of standards for leadership.Examining the LEADS in a Caring Environment Framework is the subject of a further paper by Crawford et al. in which, it is identified through analysis of physician's selfreporting that they want more of the skills in the Canadian LEADS capabilities of Engage Others and Lead Self.They also identify the emergent capability titled Business Skillsmanagement skills; capabilities are articulated in greater detail in other frameworks.Insights into development of physician leadership capability are provided by Porter et al. who sought to investigate and understand how the Cleveland Clinic's Leading in Health-care (LHC) program aims to develop physician teamwork skills.Interviews support observations by others that there is a lack of formal physician education in teamwork during undergraduate and resident training; just as there is a growing trend to inter-disciplinary teams in the health-care setting.This finding validates the teamwork content of the Cleveland Clinic program.From Wales, is the paper by Phillips et al. exploring the features of a leadership training program delivered to encourage skill acquisition in early medical career development.The authors discuss initiation of the Welsh Clinical Leadership Fellowship (WCLF) program, informed by the Medical Leadership Competency Framework domains (i.e.developed by the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement) with the aim to equip aspiring medical leaders to build and lead improvements in healthcare delivery.Saxena et al. continued the theme of shared leadership by exploring the structural aspects (roles, responsibilities and reporting) of dyad leadership in one health-care organization.The authors examined the perceptions of physician leaders at different
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".