Evaluating a physician leadership development program – a mixed methods approach

Author:

Throgmorton Cheryl,Mitchell Trey,Morley Tom,Snyder Marijo

Abstract

Purpose – With the extent of change in healthcare today, organizations need strong physician leaders. To compensate for the lack of physician leadership education, many organizations are sending physicians to external leadership programs or developing in-house leadership programs targeted specifically to physicians. The purpose of this paper is to outline the evaluation strategy and outcomes of the inaugural year of a Physician Leadership Academy (PLA) developed and implemented at a Michigan-based regional healthcare system. Design/methodology/approach – The authors applied the theoretical framework of Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation and used surveys, observations, activity tracking, and interviews to evaluate the program outcomes. The authors applied grounded theory techniques to the interview data. Findings – The program met targeted outcomes across all four levels of evaluation. Interview themes focused on the significance of increasing self-awareness, building relationships, applying new skills, and building confidence. Research limitations/implications – While only one example, this study illustrates the importance of developing the evaluation strategy as part of the program design. Qualitative research methods, often lacking from learning evaluation design, uncover rich themes of impact. The study supports how a PLA program can enhance physician learning, engagement, and relationship building throughout and after the program. Physician leaders’ partnership with organization development and learning professionals yield results with impact to individuals, groups, and the organization. Originality/value – Few studies provide an in-depth review of evaluation methods and outcomes of physician leadership development programs. Healthcare organizations seeking to develop similar in-house programs may benefit applying the evaluation strategy outlined in this study.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)

Reference39 articles.

1. Berwick, D. , Nolan, T. and Whittington, J. (2008), “The triple aim: care, health, and cost”, Health Affairs , Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 759-769.

2. Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis , SAGE Publications Ltd, London and Thousand Oaks, CA.

3. Conbere, J. , Campion, B. , Gilliam, T. and Heorhiadi, A. (2007), “Preparing physicians to lead”, Minnesota Medicine , Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 38-40.

4. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2007), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.

5. Creswell, J.W. (2012), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches , SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3