What Makes an Effective Chief of Pediatric Cardiology: Insights from Chiefs of Programs Globally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the position of a pediatric cardiology chief is seen as the apex of one's academic career, its roles, responsibilities, and qualifications are not well defined in literature. We previously surveyed North American pediatric cardiology chiefs to characterize these qualities. It is not known if these findings apply across programs around the world. This study was done to gain further insight of the role and attributes of a pediatric cardiology chief beyond North American programs by surveying those who are currently serving the position around the world. This was a mixed-methods study that sent a survey out to pediatric cardiology chiefs from around the world. The survey was a semi-structured questionnaire independently reviewed by three cardiologists. The survey included items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, open-ended prompts, and targeted questions regarding the chief's role and qualifications. Thirty two pediatric cardiology chiefs from 23 countries completed the survey. The four most important traits for the role of chief included communication, honesty, work ethic, and management skills. During the chief's tenure, 60-75% of responses noted a change in faculty and trainee work ethic and 50-60% of responses also reported increased expectations from patient families and hospital administration. Thematic analysis on the challenges and success of running a department revealed the importance of building a well-functioning team and individuals possessing clinical excellence and a strong identity. This global survey captures current perspectives on the role of a pediatric cardiology chief across multiple healthcare systems and evolving practices. Awareness of such key attributes may help promote effective leadership skills as chiefs of pediatric cardiology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".