ObjectiveTo elicit medical leaders’ views on reasons and remedies for the under-representation of women in medical leadership roles.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews with medical practitioners who work in medical leadership roles. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.SettingPublic hospitals, private healthcare providers, professional colleges and associations and government organisations in Australia.Participants30 medical practitioners who hold formal medical leadership roles.ResultsDespite dramatic increases in the entry of women into medicine in Australia, there remains a gross under-representation of women in formal, high-level medical leadership positions. The male-dominated nature of medical leadership in Australia was widely recognised by interviewees. A small number of interviewees viewed gender disparities in leadership roles as a ‘natural’ result of women's childrearing responsibilities. However, most interviewees believed that preventable gender-related barriers were impeding women's ability to achieve and thrive in medical leadership roles. Interviewees identified a range of potential barriers across three broad domains—perceptions of capability, capacity and credibility. As a counter to these, interviewees pointed to a range of benefits of women adopting these roles, and proposed a range of interventions that would support more women entering formal medical leadership roles.ConclusionsWhile women make up more than half of medical graduates in Australia today, significant barriers restrict their entry into formal medical leadership roles. These constraints have internalised, interpersonal and structural elements that can be addressed through a range of strategies for advancing the role of women in medical leadership. These findings have implications for individual medical practitioners and health services, as well as professional colleges and associations.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly transform the role of the doctor and revolutionise the practice of medicine. This qualitative review paper summarises the past 12 months of health research in AI, across different medical specialties, and discusses the current strengths as well as challenges, relating to this emerging technology. Doctors, especially those in leadership roles, need to be aware of how quickly AI is advancing in health, so that they are ready to lead the change required for its adoption by the health system. Key points: ‘AI has now been shown to be as effective as humans in the diagnosis of various medical conditions, and in some cases, more effective.’ When it comes to predicting suicide attempts, recent research suggest AI is better than human beings. ‘AI’s current strength is in its ability to learn from a large dataset and recognise patterns that can be used to diagnose conditions, putting it in direct competition with medical specialties that are involved in diagnostic tests that involve pattern recognition, such as pathology and radiology’. The current challenges in AI include legal liability and attribution of negligence when errors occur, and the ethical issues relating to patient choices. ‘AI systems can also be developed with, or learn, biases, that will need to be identified and mitigated’. As doctors and health leaders, we need to start preparing the profession to be supported by, partnered with, and, in future, potentially be replaced by, AI and advanced robotics systems.

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCEThe COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. OBJECTIVETo create an evidence-and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. EVIDENCE REVIEWA literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. FINDINGS The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes;(2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCELeaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

Purpose The paper aims to explore the beliefs of doctors in leadership roles of the concept of "the dark side", using data collected from interviews carried out with 45 doctors in medical leadership roles across Australia. The paper looks at the beliefs from the perspectives of doctors who are already in leadership roles themselves; to identify potential barriers they might have encountered and to arrive at better-informed strategies to engage more doctors in the leadership of the Australian health system. The research question is: "What are the beliefs of medical leaders that form the key themes or dimensions of the negative perception of the 'dark side'?". Design/methodology/approach The paper analysed data from two similar qualitative studies examining medical leadership and engagement in Australia by the same author, in collaboration with other researchers, which used in-depth semi-structured interviews with 45 purposively sampled senior medical leaders in leadership roles across Australia in health services, private and public hospitals, professional associations and health departments. The data were analysed using deductive and inductive approaches through a coding framework based on the interview data and literature review, with all sections of coded data grouped into themes. Findings Medical leaders had four key beliefs about the "dark side" as perceived through the eyes of their own past clinical experience and/or their clinical colleagues. These four beliefs or dimensions of the negative perception colloquially known as "the dark side" are the belief that they lack both managerial and clinical credibility, they have confused identities, they may be in conflict with clinicians, their clinical colleagues lack insight into the complexities of medical leadership and, as a result, doctors are actively discouraged from making the transition from clinical practice to medical leadership roles in the first place. Research limitations/implications This research was conducted within the Western developed-nation setting of Australia and only involved interviews with doctors in medical leadership roles. The findings are therefore limited to the doctors' own perceptions of themselves based on their past experiences and beliefs. Future research involving doctors who have not chosen to transition to leadership roles, or other health practitioners in other settings, may provide a broader perspective. Also, this research was exploratory and descriptive in nature using qualitative methods, and quantitative research can be carried out in the future to extend this research for statistical generalisation. Practical implications The paper includes implications for health organisations, training providers, medical employers and health departments and describes a multi-prong strategy to address this important issue. Originality/value This paper fulfils an identified need to study the concept of "moving to the dark side" as a negative perception of medical leadership and contributes to the evidence in this under-researched area....

Background: Suicide poses a significant health burden worldwide. In many cases, people at risk of suicide do not engage with their doctor or community due to concerns about stigmatisation and forced medical treatment; worse still, people with mental illness (who form a majority of people who die from suicide) may have poor insight into their mental state, and not self-identify as being at risk. These issues are exacerbated by the fact that doctors have difficulty in identifying those at risk of suicide when they do present to medical services. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) present opportunities for the development of novel tools for predicting suicide.Method: We searched Google Scholar and PubMed for articles relating to suicide prediction using artificial intelligence from 2017 onwards.Conclusions: This paper presents a qualitative narrative review of research focusing on two categories of suicide prediction tools: medical suicide prediction and social suicide prediction. Initial evidence is promising: AI-driven suicide prediction could improve our capacity to identify those at risk of suicide, and, potentially, save lives. Medical suicide prediction may be relatively uncontroversial when it pays respect to ethical and legal principles; however, further research is required to determine the validity of these tools in different contexts. Social suicide prediction offers an exciting opportunity to help identify suicide risk among those who do not engage with traditional health services. Yet, efforts by private companies such as Facebook to use online data for suicide prediction should be the subject of independent review and oversight to confirm safety, effectiveness and ethical permissibility.

Behaviour that is disrespectful towards others occurs frequently in hospitals, negatively impacts staff, and may undermine patient care. Professional accountability programs may address unprofessional behaviour by staff. This article examines a whole-of-hospital program, Ethos, developed by St Vincent’s Health Australia to address unprofessional behaviour, encourage speaking up, and improve organisational culture. Ethos consists of a bundle of tools, training, and resources, including an online system where staff can make submissions regarding their co-workers’ exemplary or unprofessional behaviour. Informal feedback is provided to the subject of the submission to recognise or encourage reflection on their behaviour. Following implementation in eight St Vincent’s Health Australia hospitals, the Ethos Messaging System has had 2497 submissions, 54% about positive behaviours. Peer messengers who deliver ‘Feedback for Reflection’ have faced practical challenges in providing feedback. Guidelines for the team who ‘triage’ Ethos messages have been revised to ensure only feedback that will promote reflection is passed on. Early evidence suggests Ethos has positively impacted staff, although evaluation is ongoing. The COVID-19 pandemic has required some adaptations to the program.