Senior Hospital Physician Leaders’ Perspectives on Factors That Impact Physician Engagement: A Qualitative Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Julie Simard,1 Christine Shea,1 Veronica Cho,2 Laure Perrier,1 Melissa Prokopy,1,2 Emitis Moshirzadeh,2 Sundeep Sodhi,1,2 Alia Karsan,2 Tyrone A Perreira1,2 1Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2Ontario Hospital Association, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Tyrone A Perreira, Ontario Hospital Association, 200 Front St West, Suite 2800, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3L1, Canada, Email Tperreira@oha.comBackground: Physicians are essential in health-care delivery. Physician engagement, defined as active participation in administrative and leadership activities in their organization, is a useful metric for hospital leaders to evaluate as they develop and implement strategy. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the perspectives of senior hospital physician leaders on factors impacting physician engagement.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually. A purposive sample was used. Hospital physician senior leaders were recruited from Ontario public hospitals in Canada. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.Results: Ten participants in senior hospital physician leadership positions were interviewed. Seven themes were identified as impacting physician engagement: being seen and being heard, accountability, trust, leadership engagement, intercommunication, organizational stability, and discord within the organization. Saturation of themes was achieved.Conclusion: Two-way communication is essential to physician engagement. Physician input in decision-making processes is a vital way to improve engagement. For this to work, leadership must also be engaged. Trust and accountability are critical attributes for senior hospital physician leaders, especially during times of organizational instability. For physicians whose remuneration model is fee-for-service, new compensation models are required for them to actively participate in hospital decision-making.Keywords: physician engagement, hospitals, leadership, interviews as a topic, qualitative research
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".