Emergency medicine (EM) is a discipline with complex leadership demands. However, studies of EM physician leadership and ED leadership are in their infancy. As such, there is a lack of clarity about the forms, antecedents, enablers, barriers and consequences of EM physician leadership. A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to reveal the different conceptualisations of EM physician leadership, the activities involved in the practice of leadership, and the knowledge and skills of effective ED leaders. Seven databases were systematically searched for peerreviewed empirical studies on the topic of EM physicians carrying out a manager or leadership role in an ED setting. Finally, 26 articles were included, and their findings were synthesised and analysed narratively. Two conceptualisations of EM physician leadership were found, reflecting clinical leadership and medical leadership, respectively. Clinical leadership is performed by all EM physicians, often informally, within their daily clinical practice, whereas medical leadership is performed by EM physicians who work at the management level within a hospital, in addition to or instead of their clinical practice. The focus of EM physician leadership and ED leadership research is team leadership, with much less attention given to wider organisation leadership. Consistent with the focus on team leadership, clinical knowledge and skill in orchestrating teams, especially trauma and resuscitation teams, emerged as the most important factors underpinning leadership effectiveness. Future research and training should make better use of existing leadership theory and research designs to illuminate the forms, dynamics, antecedents, moderators and consequences of EM physician leadership.
Rural/remote health services are vulnerable to occupational violence and aggression due to factors such as weapon accessibility, poor network coverage and distance to backup. This systematic review investigated (1) the nature of occupational violence and aggression perpetrated in rural/remote health service urgent care settings and (2) the availability and effectiveness of policies/interventions/recommendations that address occupational violence and aggression in this context. We searched Business Source Complete, CINAHL Complete, Health & Society, APAIS Health, Health Collection, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, SocIndex and Web of Science. Included articles (peer‐reviewed, no grey literature and English language) addressed occupational violence and aggression in rural health service urgent care settings. Fifteen articles matched these criteria (total [rural/remote only, where specified] N ~ 2555) and were included in the final analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. A data extraction table and narrative synthesis are presented. The most common occupational violence and aggression type was verbal aggression. The primary perpetrator was patients. Risk factors reflected practitioner age, remoteness, sector, staffing, shift type and area of practice. Precipitating factors were alcohol/drugs, dissatisfaction and mental health conditions. Policy content and limitations and education/training programme effectiveness were not addressed. Community collaboration supported occupational violence and aggression prevention/management. Organisational culture should promote reporting, debriefing and post‐incident care for staff well‐being. Work environment and job/task design are priorities for safety, but with possible limitations for traumatised clients. Occupational violence and aggression policies/interventions in rural health settings must be systematically evaluated to inform best practices. Co‐funded by Swinburne Social Innovation Research Institute Interdisciplinary Seed Funding Scheme and SMART Rural Health Network.
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.