Building capacity to lead: Development implementation and evaluation of a leadership and management education program for nurse leader-managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Nurses in leadership and managerial roles require ongoing opportunities to develop their leadership knowledge and skills. Effective nursing leadership contributes to team functioning and healthy work environments, as well as improved outcomes for staff and patients. This paper reports on the development, implementation and evaluation of a Leadership and Management for Nurses Program (LMNP) in Ontario, Canada. The program was designed for novice nurse leader-managers to enhance knowledge and skills necessary to promote competence, confidence, and effectiveness in these roles.Methods: A program evaluation framework was developed to evaluate the LMNP including the degree to which the program supported participants in achieving their leadership goals and the impact of the program on participant leadership and confidence. Upon completion of the program all participants were invited to respond to an electronic evaluation survey exploring both program processes and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey data.Results: Fifty-four participants responded to the survey. Results suggest that the program length and content were appropriate, contributing to the achievement of leadership learning goals and the development of leadership and managerial skills and knowledge, increased confidence and overall preparedness to lead.Conclusions: Novice nurse leader-managers require support to develop and maintain leadership and managerial competencies, underscoring the importance of providing leadership development opportunities through programs such as the LMNP. Healthcare organizations should consider how best to support ongoing nurse leader-manager development through leadership training and mentorship 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".