Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore issues of medical engagement in the management and leadership of health services in the English National Health Service (NHS). The literature suggests that this is an important component of high performing health systems, although the NHS has traditionally struggled to engage doctors and has been characterised as a professional bureaucracy. This study explored the ways in which health care organisations structure and operate medical leadership processes to assess the degree to which professional bureaucracies still exist in the English NHS. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the qualitative component of a research into medical leadership in nine case study sites, this paper reports on findings from over 150 interviews with doctors, general managers and nurses. In doing so, the authors focus specifically on the operation of medical leadership in nine different NHS hospitals. Findings Concerted attention has been focussed on medical leadership and this has led to significant changes to organisational structures and the recruitment and training processes of doctors for leadership roles. There is a cadre of doctors that are substantially more engaged in the leadership of their organisations than previous research has found. Yet, this engagement has tended to only involve a small section of the overall medical workforce in practice, raising questions about the nature of medical engagement more broadly. Originality/value There are only a limited number of studies that have sought to explore issues of medical leadership on this scale in the English context. This represents the first significant study of this kind in over a decade.
This project sought to describe the involvement of doctors in leadership roles in the NHS and the organisational structures and management processes in use in NHS trusts. A mixed methods approach was adopted combining a questionnaire survey of English NHS trusts and in-depth case studies of nine organisations who responded to the survey. Respondents identified a number of challenges in the development of medical leadership, and there was often perceived to be an engagement gap between medical leaders and doctors in clinical roles. While some progress has been made in the development of medical leadership in the NHS in England, much remains to be done to complete the journey that started with the Griffiths Report in 1983. We conclude that a greater degree of professionalism needs to be brought to bear in the development of medical leadership. This includes developing career structures to make it easier for doctors to take on leadership roles; providing training, development and support in management and leadership at different stages of doctors' careers; and ensuring that pay and other rewards are commensurate with the responsibilities of medical leaders. The time commitment of medical leaders and the proportion of doctors in leadership roles both need to increase. The paper concludes considering the implications of these findings for other health systems.
The publication of performance ratings for NHS Trusts (star ratings) is an important part of NHS policy. There are significant benefits to a Trust in being awarded the top rating of three stars. The methodology for awarding stars to acute hospitals is explained. The most significant areas of performance in determining a hospital's star rating are identified. The Department of Health claimed that performance in 2002 was better than in 2001, against standards that are getting tougher. This claim is assessed but no clear evidence is found to substantiate it. An alternative performance rating system using the same data is developed and compared with the official version to illustrate the importance of methodology--this system used only the outcome measures of hospital services included within the star ratings system, and not process measures. Only 41 per cent of hospitals would have received the same number of stars as their official rating. Some implications of the system of performance ratings are discussed.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore how trainee hospital doctors led work-based projects undertaken on an accredited development programme in England. Design/methodology/approach This is a case study of a leadership programme for hospital-based specialty trainees. The programme included participants leading work-based projects which were submitted for academic accreditation. Accounts of 35 work-based projects were thematically analysed to explore how participants led their projects. Findings Leadership was often informal and based on a series of individual face-to-face conversations. The establishment of project teams and the use of existing communication processes were often avoided. The reasons for this approach included lack of opportunities to arrange meetings, fear of conflict in meetings and the personal preferences of the participants. The authors discuss these findings with reference to theory and evidence about conversations and informal leadership, highlighting the relevance of complexity theory. Research limitations/implications The data are limited and drawn from the best accounts written for a specific educational context. There is therefore limited transferability to the leadership work of hospital-based specialty trainees in general. Future research into medical leadership might explore the micro practices of leadership and change, particularly in informal settings. Practical implications Leadership development programmes for trainee hospital doctors might concentrate on developing skills of conversation, particularly where there are or may be perceived power imbalances. Exploring conversations within the theory of complex responsive processes should be considered for inclusion in programmes. Originality/value This paper adds some detail to the general understanding of learning leadership in practice.
PurposeThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the first cohort of the Royal College of Physicians' (RCP) Chief Registrar programme in 2016/7. Chief Registrars provide medical leadership capacity through leadership development posts.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted a mixed methods design, comprising a monthly survey of the 21 Chief Registrars in the first cohort, interviews with Chief Registrars, and six cases studies where Chief Registrars and colleagues were interviewed.FindingsChief Registrars enjoyed high levels of practical, professional, and leadership support from their employing organisations, the RCP, and the Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management. They had high degrees of autonomy in their roles. As a result, roles were enacted in different ways, making direct comparative evaluation problematic. In particular, we identified variation on two dimensions: first, the focus on medical leadership generally, or quality improvement more specifically, and second, the focus on personal development or organisational leadership capacity.Research limitations/implicationsThe data are limited and drawn from the first cohort's experience. The Chief Registrar scheme, unlike many other leadership fellowships, maintains a high level of clinical practice (with a minimum 40 per cent leadership work). This suggests a clearer preparation for future hybrid leadership roles.Practical implicationsThis paper may offer some support and guidance for Chief Registrars and those who work with and support them.Originality/valueThis study adds to the literature on leadership development for doctors in hybrid roles, and highlights the distinctiveness of the scheme compared with other schemes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.