Leadership in Health Care: A Comparison With Leadership Development Best Practices

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Effective leadership is essential in today's health care environment. To date, no study exists identifying the best practices for Leader Development (LD) within the physical therapy profession, nor has there been a published review of existing leadership curricula against health care industry best practices. The purpose of this project is to (1) design and develop a comprehensive checklist to guide physical therapy educators when developing and evaluating LD curricula and (2) to implement and evaluate this checklist by reviewing a current Leadership Development Program (LDP) within the physical therapy profession. METHOD/MODEL DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION: Applying the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model of instructional design, the researchers identified a systematic review of LDPs and a meta-analysis as the most comprehensive sources for mapping 12 best practices indicators of LDP curriculum into a design and development of a comprehensive LDP best practices checklist based upon Kern's 6 Step to Curriculum Development conceptual framework. The LDP best practices criterion checklist was then implemented and evaluated by applying it to an existing national LDP within the physical therapy profession. OUTCOMES: When applying the LDP best practices checklist, consensus was achieved among 3 independent reviewers. The LDP best practices checklist was sensitive in identifying when the LD curriculum met the best practice indicator and when there were areas for improvement in each of the 12 best practice criteria. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapy educational programs and health care organizations should consider using this LDP best practices criterion checklist to guide the development, design, and implementation of their LDP. By adhering to contemporary best practices in LDPs, programs can improve their effectiveness in achieving their intended outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.