Medical management and leadership: a time of transition?

Hospital performance and clinical leadership: new evidence from Iran

Purpose

There is growing interest in the potential need for clinical involvement in leadership and management of hospitals. Most studies of clinical leadership use US and European data. This paper contributes the first evidence for the country of Iran. It examines three different forms of hospital system: public, private and social security organisation, and these include teaching and non-teaching hospitals. This study adds to a small but growing literature that examines the possible value of ‘expert’ clinical leaders.

Method

This study uses data from 72 general hospitals in the city of Tehran. The data were collected for years 2015 and 2016. Data Envelopment Analysis is used to assess hospital performance. Hospitals’ chief operating officers are divided into two groups: clinicians, the majority of whom are physicians (doctors), and non-medically trained managers.

Findings

The average performance scores for hospitals with clinical managers and non-clinically trained managers are equal to 96.68±5.50 and 89.78±7.20, respectively (p<0.001). Performance is thus higher under clinical managers. Outcome differences are observed in each of the three types of ownership and in teaching and non-teaching hospitals. The advantage in performance-score varies, when comparing the clinically led institutions and managerially led institutions, by between 5 and 10 points on a 0–100 scale. These differences remain after regression-equation adjustment for other influences.

Practical implications

Succession planning and targeted leadership development is made more efficient with greater awareness about the kinds of leaders and managers that enhance organisational performance.

Paired learning – improving collaboration between clinicians and managers

Purpose

Close collaboration between NHS clinicians and managers is essential in providing effective healthcare, but relationships between the two groups are often poor. Paired learning is a peer-peer buddying tool that can break down barriers, increase knowledge and change attitudes. Paired learning has been used with doctors and managers but not for multi-professional clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether a paired learning programme (PLP) can improve knowledge and attitudes between multi-professional NHS clinicians and managers.

Design/methodology/approach

A PLP pairing clinicians and managers over a four-month period to participate in four buddy meetings and three group meetings was delivered. A mixed methods study was completed which collected quantitative and qualitative data in the form of pre- and post-course questionnaires and focus group discussions.

Findings

Participants reported increased understanding, changed attitudes and better communication between clinicians and managers following the PLP. Self-rated knowledge increased across all domains but was only statistically significant for ability to engage, ability to establish shared goals and knowledge of decision-making processes.

Research limitations/implications

This paper highlights the value of paired learning in encouraging collaboration between clinicians and managers but is of a small size. The PLP did not provide enough data to examine relationships and interaction between clinicians and managers, this should be considered in any future work.

Originality/value

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the only published paper showing data from a PLP involving multi-disciplinary health professionals.