Enhancing frontline clinical leadership in an acute hospital trust

A mixed-methods systematic review of interventions to improve leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses

AIM

This study aimed to synthesize evidence on interventions to improve leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, numerous interventions have been developed to improve the leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses. However, researchers and nursing leaders are unclear about what aspects of interventions are effective for developing which competencies.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach for evidence synthesis. The Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Nursing and Allied Health Database were reviewed. Data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 69 studies (35 quantitative, 22 mixed methods, 12 qualitative) evaluating 68 interventions were included. Studies showed that interventions used modal activities such as lectures, group work and mentoring that generally had positive effects on improving leadership competencies such as supporting, developing and recognizing nurses. Opportunities to interact with peers increased managers' engagement in the interventions; however, many barriers existed for managers to use the competencies in practice including understaffing, insufficient time and lack of support from supervisors and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadership interventions were shown to have beneficial effects on developing different competencies. Managers predominately felt positive about participating in leadership interventions; however, they expressed many difficulties applying what they learned in practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Leadership interventions should include multimodal activities that give managers opportunities for interaction. When considering interventions for developing the leadership of managers, it is imperative to consider the practice environments for managers to be successful in applying the competencies they learned in practice.

Coaching to develop leadership for healthcare managers: a mixed-method systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of interventions have focused on leadership development for healthcare managers, among which coaching is a common strategy. The purpose of the present systematic review is to synthesize evidence on the effect of coaching in developing leadership of healthcare managers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A literature search will be conducted in six English databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane library, Nursing & Allied Health Premium, and Scopus) and four Chinese databases (Wanfang, CNKI, SinoMed, and VIP) from inception to April 1st, 2022. The titles, abstracts, and full texts of the studies will be screened by two independent researchers to determine their eligibility. The RoB 2, ROBINS-I, CASP, and MMAT will be applied to assess the quality of randomized trials, non-randomized studies, qualitative studies, and mixed-method studies, respectively. We will then extract the study characteristics, participant characteristics, and study outcomes of the reviewed papers. The Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, and Delivery framework will be used to extract the components of coaching strategies. For quantitative data, a meta-analysis will be performed if sufficient data are available; otherwise, we will conduct a narrative synthesis. Thematic synthesis methods will be used for qualitative data analysis.

DISCUSSION

By conducting this systematic review, we expect to synthesize evidence regarding the components of coaching for leadership development among healthcare managers; the influence of coaching on leadership development among managers at the individual, unit-wide, or organizational level; and how managers view coaching as a leadership development strategy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020194290 .

Lessons learnt from the implementation of same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Change in healthcare organisations is constant and requires adequate resources for effective implementation. Same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention has been found to be no different from the patients who stayed overnight after procedure; however, its uptake remains low.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to identify what factors helped or hindered the implementation of same-day discharge.

METHODS

This interpretive study was conducted in a cardiac catheterisation suite of an Australian tertiary hospital between June and December 2016. Semistructured individual interviews with 26 healthcare professionals were conducted to explore the factors that influenced the implementation. A deductive approach to content analysis was guided by the theoretical domains framework.

FINDINGS

Five domains, including beliefs about consequences, professional role and identity, resources, behaviour regulation, and optimism, were identified which were strongly related to the factors that impacted the implementation. The findings showed that participants believed same-day discharge benefits while also concerning about its safety and holding different opinions on eligibility criteria. The findings also showed that participants' involvement in the change process varied with no clear roles and responsibilities and that their understanding about same-day discharge evidence and the guideline also differed. Lack of dedicated resources was also identified as the hindrance to the implementation. Behaviour regulation domain depicted how communication was managed and how the care for same-day discharge patients was improved. Despite several issues identified, participants were optimistic with achievement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study has provided valuable insight into the factors that influenced the implementation, which will inform policymakers when designing interventions for future improvement. Plan for change and involvement of all stakeholders along with dedicated resources including time, people, and change management expertise are essential if hospitals want to see the success of change.

Developing and evaluating clinical leadership interventions for frontline healthcare providers: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The importance of clinical leadership in ensuring high quality patient care is emphasized in health systems worldwide. Of particular concern are the high costs to health systems related to clinical litigation settlements. To avoid further cost, healthcare systems particularly in High-Income Countries invest significantly in interventions to develop clinical leadership among frontline healthcare workers at the point of care. In Low-Income Countries however, clinical leadership development is not well established. This review of the literature was conducted towards identifying a model to inform clinical leadership development interventions among frontline healthcare providers, particularly for improved maternal and newborn care.

METHODS

A structural literature review method was used, articles published between 2004 and 2017 were identified from search engines (Google Scholar and EBSCOhost). Additionally, electronic databases (CINHAL, PubMed, Medline, Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Consumer, Health Source: Nursing/Academic, Science Direct and Ovid®), electronic journals, and reference lists of retrieved published articles were also searched.

RESULTS

Employing pre-selected criteria, 1675 citations were identified. After screening 50 potentially relevant full-text papers for eligibility, 24 papers were excluded because they did not report on developing and evaluating clinical leadership interventions for frontline healthcare providers, 2 papers did not have full text available. Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria for review. Interventions for clinical leadership development involved the development of clinical skills, leadership competencies, teamwork, the environment of care and patient care. Work-based learning with experiential teaching techniques is reported as the most effective, to ensure the clinical leadership development of frontline healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

All studies reviewed arose in High-Income settings, demonstrating the need for studies on frontline clinical leadership development in Low-and Middle-Income settings. Clinical leadership development is an on-going process and must target both novice and veteran frontline health care providers. The content of clinical leadership development interventions must encompass a holistic conceptualization of clinical leadership, and should use work-based learning, and team-based approaches, to improve clinical leadership competencies of frontline healthcare providers, and overall service delivery.

Impact of clinical leadership in teams' course on quality, efficiency, responsiveness and trust in the emergency department: study protocol of a trailing research study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical leadership has long been recognised as critical for optimising patient safety, quality of care and interprofessional teamwork in busy and stressful healthcare settings. There is a need to compensate for the absence of the conventional mentor-to-apprentice transfer of clinical leadership knowledge and skills. While young doctors and nurses are increasingly proficient in medical, surgical and technical skills, their training in, and knowledge of clinical leadership skills, is not adequate to meet the demands for these non-technical skills in the emergency department. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to present and discuss the study protocol of clinical leadership in a course for teams that aims to improve quality, efficiency, responsiveness of healthcare services and collegial trust in the emergency department.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study employs a trailing research design using multiple quantitative and qualitative methods in the summative (pretest and post-test) and formative evaluation. Quantitative data have been collected from a patient questionnaire, the emergency departments' database and by the observation of team performance. Qualitative data have been collected by shadowing healthcare professionals and through focus group interviews. To ensure trustworthiness in the data analysis, we will apply member checks and analyst triangulation, in addition to providing contextual and sample description to allow for evaluation of transferability of our results to other contexts and groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the ethics committee of the western part of Norway and the hospital. The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. Informants can withdraw at any point in time. The results will be disseminated at research conferences, peer review journals and through public presentations to people outside the scientific community.

Nursing Leadership, Missing Questions, and the Elephant(s) in the Room: Problematizing the Discourse on Nursing Leadership

To expose inconsistencies and contradictions in the nurse leadership literature ("text"), this article adopts a deconstructive approach and draws upon the work of Derrida in examining the text or discourse. What is almost entirely missing in the literature are articles that ask difficult, searching questions that challenge some of the taken-for-granted truths or maxims about nursing leadership. The current examination of the literature, described in this article, shows: (a) a lack of convergence of the literature and health care/nursing organizations concerning leadership, (b) a conflation of nursing leadership with managerial or administrative positions, and