Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Developing and evaluating clinical leadership interventions for frontline healthcare providers: a review of the literature

BMC Health Services Research volume 18, Article number: 747 (2018) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The importance of clinical leadership in ensuring high quality patient care is emphasized in health systems worldwide. Of particular concern are the high costs to health systems related to clinical litigation settlements. To avoid further cost, healthcare systems particularly in High-Income Countries invest significantly in interventions to develop clinical leadership among frontline healthcare workers at the point of care. In Low-Income Countries however, clinical leadership development is not well established. This review of the literature was conducted towards identifying a model to inform clinical leadership development interventions among frontline healthcare providers, particularly for improved maternal and newborn care.

Methods

A structural literature review method was used, articles published between 2004 and 2017 were identified from search engines (Google Scholar and EBSCOhost). Additionally, electronic databases (CINHAL, PubMed, Medline, Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Consumer, Health Source: Nursing/Academic, Science Direct and Ovid®), electronic journals, and reference lists of retrieved published articles were also searched.

Results

Employing pre-selected criteria, 1675 citations were identified. After screening 50 potentially relevant full-text papers for eligibility, 24 papers were excluded because they did not report on developing and evaluating clinical leadership interventions for frontline healthcare providers, 2 papers did not have full text available. Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria for review. Interventions for clinical leadership development involved the development of clinical skills, leadership competencies, teamwork, the environment of care and patient care. Work-based learning with experiential teaching techniques is reported as the most effective, to ensure the clinical leadership development of frontline healthcare providers.

Conclusions

All studies reviewed arose in High-Income settings, demonstrating the need for studies on frontline clinical leadership development in Low-and Middle-Income settings. Clinical leadership development is an on-going process and must target both novice and veteran frontline health care providers. The content of clinical leadership development interventions must encompass a holistic conceptualization of clinical leadership, and should use work-based learning, and team-based approaches, to improve clinical leadership competencies of frontline healthcare providers, and overall service delivery.

Peer Review reports

Background

Clinical leadership by frontline healthcare providers is a critical part of bedside care [1]. Clinical leadership is recommended for the potential impact on clinical practice and on the clinical care environment, and contributes to safe and quality patient care, and to job satisfaction and retention of frontline healthcare providers [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Frontline healthcare providers are well placed to identify work inefficiencies, motivate other members of the care team to act on patient care, and lead change initiatives to correct problems that arise in the clinical setting. Frontline healthcare providers can also identify inefficiencies related to organizational structures and work flows, and to poor policies and procedures for the delivery of optimal patient care [2, 5, 7,8,9,10]. Conversely, poor frontline clinical leadership in the clinical setting has been associated with adverse events and clinical litigation settlements, prompting many healthcare systems, particularly in High-Income Countries (HICs), to invest significantly in interventions that support clinical leadership development [3, 11].

However, in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), clinical leadership development is not well established. As an example, in South African maternity services, maternal and perinatal deaths have been associated with deficiencies in frontline clinical leadership [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Albeit the need for clinical leadership development interventions has been identified, there is little evidence to support the planning, implementation and evaluation of such interventions, particularly among frontline healthcare providers, in LMICs [13,14,15,16,17,18].

Towards identifying a model to inform clinical leadership development among frontline healthcare providers in LMIC, including maternity services in South Africa, a literature review was conducted. The purpose of the literature review was to synthesize published evidence on frontline clinical leadership development and its evaluation and included multiple frontline-care contexts. A database was constructed to extract important dimensions of the clinical leadership development interventions. Further, to synthesize the reported findings on the evaluation of the effectiveness of clinical leadership interventions, Kirkpatrick’s evaluation approach was used [19, 20]. Kirkpatrick’s approach to evaluation comprises four levels, presented as a sequence, and includes evaluating the:

  1. (1)

    Reaction: what participants think and feel about the intervention

  2. (2)

    Learning: the resulting increase in knowledge or skills, and changes in attitude

  3. (3)

    Behaviour: change in practice because of the intervention

  4. (4)

    Result: the final result that occurs as a result of the intervention (e.g. service delivery, or patient outcomes) [19, 20].

The findings of the literature review will contribute to the design and evaluation of interventions to improve clinical leadership at the bedside in LMICs generally, and in the maternity services of South Africa specifically.

Methods

Aim

The aim of the literature review was to describe the characteristics and the evaluation of clinical leadership development interventions targeting frontline healthcare providers.

Design

A structured approach, the systematic quantitative literature review method [21], was used to search and identify the literature, and extract information on interventions for clinical leadership development.

Search methods

The searches were conducted using Google Scholar and EBSCOhost search engines. Additionally, electronic databases including CINHAL, PubMed, Medline, Academic Search Complete, Health Sources: Nursing/Academic Edition, Science Direct and Ovid®), were searched using the following keywords: ‘clinical leadership’, ‘frontline leadership’, ‘nursing leadership’, ‘ward leadership’, ‘medical leadership’, ‘clinician leadership’ in combination with: ‘development’, ‘programme’, ‘interventions’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘training’. A manual search was conducted to trace sources in the reference list of retrieved published articles.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

Papers meeting the following criteria were included for review: (1) original research published in peer-reviewed journals; (2) grey literature; (3) reporting the implementation or evaluation of interventions for clinical leadership development; (4) published in English between 2004 and 2017.

Exclusion criteria

Papers exploring the implementation and/or the evaluation of interventions or approaches for the development of health service or organizational leadership, or development of senior healthcare leaders were excluded.

Assessment of publications

The database search generated 1600 records; grey literature (health services reports, research reports, theses, and dissertations) generated 75 records; of which 1558 were duplicate. On a review of abstracts 117 papers were excluded [related to developing or evaluating organizational or health services leadership]. On screening 50 potentially relevant full-text papers, 24 were excluded [did not report on developing or evaluating clinical leadership for frontline healthcare providers], and 2 [did not have full text available]. Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria and were captured in the database.

Figure 1 presents the search algorithm indicating the number of identified studies, included and excluded studies, and reasons for exclusion.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Search algorithm, indicating number of identified studies, included and excluded studies, and reasons for exclusion

Full size image

The quality of the studies reviewed was appraised using the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) [22]. Against the StaRI criteria, the studies reporting the interventions and the evaluation of interventions for clinical leadership development did not provide adequate descriptions of the interventions themselves, of the methods used in implementing the interventions, and of the evaluation of the interventions. However, they included sound descriptions of the aims and the target groups for which the interventions were designed. Two studies provided sufficient descriptions of the intervention, the implementation and the evaluation in order to produce transferable findings [23, 24]. Overall, the studies included in this review were of poor quality. However, the shortcomings identified did not detract from the purpose of the present literature review.

Constructing the database

A database was constructed to summarise the studies identified for the review. The following information was captured in the database: the country where the intervention/evaluation was implemented, the aim of the intervention/evaluation, the target population for which the intervention was designed, the content areas of the intervention, the educational approach used, the educational techniques used, the time frame of the intervention, how the impact of intervention was measured, the outcomes and limitations of the intervention as reported in the papers.

Results

The aim of this literature review was to establish, from the published corpus, how clinical leadership was developed among frontline healthcare providers. Interventions for clinical leadership were summarized and synthesized. A total of 24 papers exploring the implementation and the evaluation of interventions for clinical leadership development met the inclusion criteria. The interventions are summarized below. 

Country where the intervention was implemented

All interventions for clinical leadership development included in this review were implemented in High-Income Countries (HIC). Thirteen papers reported on studies conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) (England, Ireland and Scotland) [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37] while six reported studies in Australia [23, 38,39,40,41,42] and three in the United States of America (USA) [24, 43, 44]. One study was conducted in Belgium [45] and one in Switzerland [46] (Table 1).

Table 1 Country where the intervention was implemented
Full size table

Aims of the interventions

The emphasis of most interventions was on developing clinical skills. Some interventions were designed to develop leadership competencies, to promote succession planning, to enhance the contribution of frontline healthcare providers to patient experiences, and to ensure quality and safe health services [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 36, 37, 39,40,41,42, 44,45,46] (Table 2). Other interventions focused on preparing nursing students, medical students, and novice frontline healthcare providers for future leadership roles and for ensuring quality care and patient safety [33, 35, 43]. Some interventions were developed to transform managers into leaders [32].

Table 2 Aim of the intervention
Full size table

Target group for which interventions were implemented

Interventions for clinical leadership development targeted a variety of frontline health care providers (Table 3). Only a few interventions included frontline healthcare providers for maternal and child health [28,29,30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41], while the remainder of interventions included early career nurses, qualified nurses, medical doctors, and allied healthcare professionals in hospital settings, including primary and secondary, acute, academic, community and regional hospitals, and mental health and geriatric wards [23, 26, 27, 31, 35, 38,39,40, 44, 45]. Other target groups include novice students, senior level nursing students, senior registrars, and postgraduate medical and dental students [24, 25, 42, 43].

Table 3 Target group which interventions were implemented
Full size table

Content areas covered by the interventions

Development of clinical skills was common to the majority of interventions as summarized in Table 4 [24, 28, 30, 33, 35,36,37,38,39, 41,42,43, 45, 46]. Other content areas included personal development, teamwork, team management, team building, service delivery, care processes, and the environment of care needed to ensure quality and safe services [23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44].

Table 4 Content areas covered by the interventions
Full size table

Educational approaches

Primarily the interventions for clinical leadership development were offered in the form of in-service training using a work-based learning (WBL) educational approach within the clinical settings [28, 29, 31,32,33,34, 36,37,38, 42, 45, 46]. Classroom-based learning (CBL) conducted in classrooms outside of clinical settings [30, 43] or a combination of both were also used [27, 41, 44]. Some interventions were offered as postgraduate training programmes, using a combination of WBL and CBL [24, 25, 30, 35] (Table 5).

Table 5 Educational approaches
Full size table

Educational techniques

Interventions for clinical leadership development targeting frontline healthcare providers made use of a variety of educational techniques, used singularly or in combination (Table 6.) A combination of action learning, mentorship and coaching was used in six interventions to develop various skills [28,29,30, 33, 36, 37]. Other educational approaches included inquiry-based learning, self-directed learning, case-based learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning, and shadowing [23, 25,26,27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38,39,40, 42, 44,45,46]. Clinical supervision was used only in one intervention [24].

Table 6 Educational techniques
Full size table

Time frame of interventions for clinical leadership development

Most interventions for clinical leadership development were offered as multiple contact sessions of varying duration, ranging from a few days, to a few weeks, or to lasting several months [24, 26, 30, 33, 37,38,39,40, 44,45,46] (Table 7). Other interventions were offered as multiple contact sessions in postgraduates programmes [24, 30, 35]. One intervention was offered as a full-time master degree programme with no detail of the contact sessions provided [25].

Table 7 Time frame of interventions for clinical leadership development
Full size table

How interventions were measured

Best practice in measuring an intervention is to use pre-post evaluation. Nine out of twenty-four studies used pre-and post-test methods to measure the learning attainment, behaviour, and impact of the intervention [23, 24, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46]. Fifteen studies used only post-test methods to measure the effectiveness of the interventions (Table 8).

Table 8 How interventions were assessed
Full size table

To categorize how the different articles evaluated their interventions, Kirkpatrick’s approach was used. Only one study included an evaluation at all four levels namely, the reaction, learning attainment and behaviour, and impact of the intervention on service delivery [32]. Measuring participant reactions to the interventions was common to most interventions [23,24,25,26,27, 29,30,31,32, 35, 38,39,40, 43]. Learning attainment, and the behavior of participants were also measured. The tools used to collect evaluation data included self-report questionnaires, online surveys, evaluation sheets, structured evaluation forms. Additional tools included in-depth-interviews, group interviews, FGDs, observations of action learning sets and document review.

Outcomes of the interventions as reported in the papers

The outcomes of the interventions recorded in the papers include: personal development [increased self-awareness and confidence, feelings of empowerment, time management, development of emotional intelligence skills and increased learning ability] [27, 32, 34, 37, 38, 45]; enhanced leadership knowledge and skills [communication, willingness to lead teams, delegation, ability to empower others, problem solving, decision making, ability to inspire a shared vision, team management] [24, 26,27,28,29, 32, 34,35,36,37, 41, 43,44,45,46]; improved clinical knowledge and skills [enhanced basic nursing knowledge and skills, improved clinical practices, understanding of contribution to patient care] [42], improved teamwork [ability to work as part of multi-disciplinary teams, ability to manage teams] [23, 25, 30, 31, 37, 40, 43], improved patient care [increased focus on patient care, improved patient outcomes], and service delivery [change in care processes] [24, 28, 33, 39, 41, 45] (Table 9).

Table 9 Outcomes of the interventions as reported in the papers
Full size table

Limitations of the interventions

Of studies that reported the limitations of interventions the following were identified: difficulty in gaining consent from patients to be observed while care was being provided and some trainers may not be skilled enough to observe using direct observation [39]; interventions that were too intensive and demanding, affecting the motivation and ability of participants to attend all sessions [27, 30, 40]; time away from clinical duties, resistance from colleagues to implement changed practices, and nurses or midwives taking clinical leadership roles and lack of support from health service managers [23, 25, 34, 41]; short timeline for progamme implementation which did not allow for assessing the impact of interventions on participants, service users and on service delivery [23, 29, 34, 36]; and challenges with sustainability of gains made through the interventions [31, 38]. A lack of a control group in evaluating interventions was also considered a limitation in attributing changes to the intervention [24]. The transferability of the intervention was also questioned [42] (Table 10).

Table 10 Limitations of the interventions
Full size table

Discussion

This literature review of the implementation and evaluation of interventions for clinical leadership development was conducted towards identifying a model to inform clinical leadership development among frontline healthcare providers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) generally, and for the delivery of optimal maternal and perinatal care in South Africa specifically.

All descriptions of interventions for clinical leadership development derive from studies implemented in HICs. This would limit the transferability of study findings to LMICs, where clinical leadership is still underdeveloped and healthcare systems are faced with different contextual challenges [8]. Studies are required to explore appropriate interventions to improve clinical leadership in LMICs, including South Africa.

Of note, clinical leadership development programmes targeted novice to veteran frontline healthcare providers, in both formal and informal leadership positions [23]. This could indicate a previous neglect of ongoing clinical leadership development amongst frontline healthcare workers across the health system. With the emphasis on developing clinical expertise, interventions for clinical leadership development must include frontline healthcare workers who have been practicing for some time and may serve the purpose of updating veteran healthcare workers to new evidence-based practices of care.

Some interventions for clinical leadership development reported in this review embraced a holistic conceptualization of clinical leadership, paying attention to clinical skills, leadership skills, team building, team management, the environment of care, and service delivery [34, 38, 45]. Other interventions were more selective, based on checklists of whether participants manifested certain clinical skills. Interventions that embrace a holistic conceptualization of clinical leadership are more detailed, and can produce well trained and skilled clinical leaders. However, they may be expensive, and may require longer training periods, as they include multiple dimensions of clinical leadership. Interventions based on a selective understanding of clinical leadership may be shorter in nature, as they may focus on fewer dimensions of clinical leadership. However, these interventions may not be able to produce skilled clinical leaders.

Most interventions for clinical leadership development used work-based learning as an educational approach to improve, develop, maintain or increase practicing professionals’ competence in the clinical setting [47, 48]. Work-based learning (WBL) has been shown to promote practical learning and to help practitioners relate new knowledge to their work environment [49, 50]. Classroom-based learning takes participants away from their work environment, a feature often considered as a major weakness of this approach [49, 50]. A systematic review evaluating in-service training suggests that WBL is the most appropriate approach to improve not only the knowledge of participants but also the skills, behaviors and attitudes of participants [51,52,53]. WBL with experiential teaching techniques, such as mentoring and coaching, can ensure effective clinical leadership development of frontline healthcare providers.

In many interventions, the actual length of exposure to contact sessions, and the balance of time between the delivery of training content, and hands-on activities, were not detailed. The paucity of information poses a challenge when trying to replicate the interventions to other settings. In the interventions that did indeed describe the length of exposure to the intervention, multiple contact sessions, over varying periods of time, were used to deliver the interventions. Intensive once-off training sessions are shown to have a negative impact on participants’ motivation [27, 40]. Multiple time-spaced contact sessions appear to be the most suitable approach to delivering in-service training programmes, as they provide participants with sufficient time and space to engage, reflect on the content of the training programme, and apply knowledge and skills to the work place [52, 54]. While designing interventions for clinical leadership development, there is a need to ensure that a reasonable timeframe tailored to participants’ needs is provided.

Most studies used only post-test evaluation to measure the effectiveness of the interventions. Post-test evaluation is outcome oriented and is concerned with the results of the intervention. The absence of pre-test observations and a lack of a control group in post-test evaluations limits the ability to attribute observed changes to the intervention [55]. Nonetheless, post-test is used in most interventions because of the logistical difficulties in obtaining pre-test observations due to time constraints [56].

Pre-post-test evaluation may be the most accurate way to provide a full picture of changes in participants over the course of the training programme. [56]. However, many interventions were implemented as once-off short interventions, over a couple of weeks. A short implementation timeline may not be sufficient to allow change to occur, and may not permit sufficient time to measure the impact of interventions in participants, teams, environments of care, or service delivery [23, 30, 34, 36].

Kirkpatrick’s approach to evaluation recommends four levels of evaluation to objectively measure the effectiveness of training programmes [19]. Most papers did not provide thorough descriptions of evaluation methods. Only one study reviewed included an evaluation at each of the four levels suggested by Kirkpatrick’s approach [32]. Most papers reporting the evaluation of interventions for clinical leadership development focused on the reactions of participants and learning attainment [27, 32, 34, 37, 38, 45]. Participants reported positive experiences, and indicated the acquisition of leadership knowledge and skills as result of the intervention [27, 32, 34, 37, 38, 45]. Some studies reported improved clinical knowledge and skills improved teamwork as the behavior of participants [23, 25, 29, 33, 34, 40, 42, 43]. The impact of interventions include improved patient care, improved patient outcomes, and change in care processes [24, 28, 33, 39, 41, 45].

Although some interventions used validated tools to evaluate the interventions, most outcomes recorded in this review used self-reported changes. Tools that elicit self-reported learning attainment and behaviour changes are considered to provide weak evaluation evidence and are of variable accuracy [57]. Factors that affect accuracy include information bias, influenced by recall bias and social desirability bias, and design bias, influenced by questionnaire design and mode of data collection [57]. To move beyond the weaknesses of to self-reported changes, the literature suggests the use of 360° assessments [58,59,60]. This method involves an individual and several other people (e.g. peers, supervisors, assessors, and managers) provide a comprehensive feedback on an individual’s behaviour and effectiveness [60]. It is suggested that used in combination with training programmes or interventions, 360° feedback can be an effective assessment tool [58,59,60]. Adequate descriptions of interventions, and rigorous description of methods used in implementing, and evaluating the interventions are required to ensure transferability of findings of interventions to other settings.

Most studies did not discuss the limitations of the interventions, or the sustainability of gains made through the intervention. One strategy to ensure sustainability of interventions for clinical leadership development is the team training approach [23]. A team training approach to clinical leadership development may serve a dual purpose: the transfer of skills and teambuilding. Teambuilding is an integral part of clinical leadership development, as well as an outcome of clinical leadership. A team training approach allows multiple professionals to be trained together, reduces resistance to change, and reduces the resistance to frontline healthcare leaders taking clinical leadership roles [23].

Strengths of the review

This review highlights the diversity, extent, and gaps of interventions for the development of clinical leadership among frontline healthcare providers. The review also highlights the conceptualizations of clinical leadership embedded in the interventions, and the challenges encountered in the implementation of interventions for clinical leadership development.

Limitations of the review

Although rigorous steps were carried out in this review, we are also aware of some limitations

  • Studies may have been omitted from the review if they were not published in the databases searched, or if they were published in languages other than English.

  • The choice to limit the search to articles that described the implementation or evaluation of interventions for clinical leadership development among frontline healthcare providers, and published between 2004 and 2017, may have reduced the range of articles included in the review.

Conclusions

The literature review was conducted towards identifying a model to inform clinical leadership development among frontline healthcare providers in LMIC settings. All studies reviewed arose in HIC settings, demonstrating the need for studies on frontline clinical leadership development in LMIC settings. The synthesis of studies conducted in HIC setting revealed what needs to be considered in the design of clinical leadership development interventions in LMIC settings. Firstly, clinical leadership development is an on-going process and must target both novice and veteran frontline health care providers. Secondly, the content of clinical leadership development interventions must encompass a holistic conceptualization of clinical leadership, with a focus on clinical skills and on competencies that support optimal clinical care. Thirdly, interventions for clinical leadership development should use work-based learning approaches, and experiential and practice-based learning techniques, as these are more likely to contribute to the sustainable development of clinical leadership among frontline healthcare providers, and to the improvement in overall service delivery. Fourthly, team-based approaches to clinical leadership development, implemented through multiple contacts over a period of time, allow the acquisition and the transfer of skills, and teambuilding. Fifthly, assessment of the expected learning and evaluation of expected outcomes need to be carefully planned in the design of clinical leadership development interventions, and measured preferable through pre-post assessments, and 3600 assessments. Lastly, adequate description of the implementation setting, of the intervention model, and of the methods used in implementing and evaluating the interventions are necessary to ensure transferability of an intervention to other settings. These guidelines established from this review of the literature, must be incorporated in the design of interventions for clinical leadership development in LMIC settings.

Abbreviations

HICs:

High-Income Countries

LMICs:

Low-and-Middle-Income Countries

StaRI:

Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of America

WBL:

Work based learning

CBL:

Classroom based learning

SDL:

self-directed learning

FGDs:

focus group discussions

References

  1. Abraham A. Care and compassion? Report of the Health Service Ombudsman on ten investigations into NHS care of older people. London; 2011. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/2016-10/Care%20and%20Compassion.pdf.

  2. Casey M, McNamara M, Fealy G, Geraghty R. Nurses’ and midwives’ clinical leadership development needs: a mixed methods study. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67:1502–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Daly J, Jackson D, Mannix J, Davidson P, Hutchinson M. The importance of clinical leadership in the hospital setting. J Healthc Leadersh. 2014;6:75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Edmonstone J. Evaluating clinical leadership: a case study. Leadersh Health Serv. 2009;22:210–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grindel C. Clinical leadership: a call to action. Medsurg Nurs. 2016;25:9–16 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27044123. Accessed 22 May 2017.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Supamanee T, Krairiksh M, Singhakhumfu L, Turale S. Preliminary clinical nursing leadership competency model: a qualitative study from Thailand. Nurs Health Sci. 2011;13:433–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00649.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doherty J. Leadership from ‘below’? Clinical staff and public hospitals in South Africa | municipal services project. 2014. http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/publication/leadership-below-clinical-staff-and-public-hospitals-south-africa. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  8. Doherty J. Strengthening clinical leadership in hospitals: review of the international and south African literature. Municipal Service Project: South Africa; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jonas S, McCay L, Keogh B. The importance of clinical leadership. In: Swanwick T, McKimm J, editors. ABC of clinical leadership. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2011. p. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Patrick A, Wong C, Finegan J, Laschinger HKS, Wong C, Finegan J, et al. Developing and testing a new measure of staff nurse clinical leadership: the clinical leadership survey. J Nurs Manag. 2011;19:449–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright L, Barnett P, Hendry C. Clinical leadership and clinical governance: a review of developments in New Zealand and internationally. New Zealand; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schoon MG, Motlolometsi MW. Poor maternal outcomes: a factor of poor professional systems design. S Afr Med J. 2012;102:784. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.6130.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pattinson R, Rhoda N. Saving babies 2012–2013: ninth report on perinatal care in South Africa for the PPIP group. Pretoria: Tshepesa Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pattinson R, Sithembiso V, Hardy B, Moran N, Wilhelm S. Overview. In: Pattinson R, editor. Saving babies 2006–2007 sixth report on perinatal care in South Africa. Pretoria; 2009. p. 1–39. http://www.ppip.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Saving-babies-2006-7.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2017.

  15. National Committee for the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Saving mothers 1998: confidential enquiry into maternal deaths in South Africa. In: Saving mothers. Pretoria; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  16. National Committee for the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Saving mothers 2005-2007: fourth report on the confidential enquiry into maternal deaths in South Africa. In: Pretoria; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  17. National Committee for the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Saving mothers 2011-2013: sixth report on the confidential enquiry into maternal deaths in South Africa. In: Pretoria; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pattinson R, Tlebere P. Overview recommendations. In: Saving Babies 2003–2005: Fifth perinatal care survey of South Africa. 2007. p. 1–148.

  19. Tian J, Atkinson NL, Portnoy B, Gold RS. A systematic review of evaluation in formal continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2007;27:16–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kirkpatrick D. The four levels of evaluation. Info line, tips, tools, and intelligence for trainers. 3rd edition. American society for training and development: Pewaukeen; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pickering C, Grignon J, Steven R, Guitart D, Byrne J. Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews. Stud High Educ. 2015;40:1756–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI): explanation and elaboration document. BMJ Open. 2017;7. http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/open_access_pubs. Accessed 8 Feb 2018.

  23. MacPhail A, Young C, Ibrahim JE. Workplace-based clinical leadership training increases willingness to lead. Leadersh Health Serv. 2015;28:100–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-01-2014-0002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lekan DA, Corazzini KN, Gilliss CL, Bailey DE, Corazzini KN, Colón-Emeric C, et al. Clinical leadership development in accelerated baccalaureate nursing students: an education innovation. J Prof Nurs. 2011;27:202–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.03.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller S, Dalton K. Learning from an evaluation of Kent, Surrey and Sussex Deanery’s clinical leadership fellowship programme. Int J Clin Leadersh. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=a8955600-f640-4344-9fcc-d6150ec4bfa3%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=61952376&db=a9h.

  26. Leeson D, Millar M. Using the 7 habits programme to develop effective leadership. Nurs Manag. 2013;20:31–7 http://journals.rcni.com/doi/pdfplus/10.7748/nm2013.10.20.6.31.e1123. Accessed 23 May 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Enterkin J, Robb E, McLaren S. Clinical leadership for high-quality care: developing future ward leaders. J Nurs Manag. 2013;21:206–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01408.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lunn C, Mac Curtain S, Mac Mahon J. Clinical leadership pilot: evaluation report. Nursing & Midwifery Planning & Development Unit HSE West; 2008. http://www.lenus.ie/hse/handle/10147/312631. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  29. McNamara MS, Fealy GM, Casey M, O’Connor T, Patton D, Doyle L, et al. Mentoring, coaching and action learning: interventions in a national clinical leadership development programme. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23:2533–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pearson P, Machin A, Rae A. Clinical leadership for the future: evaluation of the early clinical careers fellowship pilot programme. Scotland; 2010. http://www.nes.scot.nhs.uk/media/308771/pauline_pearson_presentation_june_2010.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  31. Phillips N, Byrne G. Enhancing frontline clinical leadership in an acute hospital trust. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22:2625–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Castillo C, James S. How to turn ward managers into leaders. Nurs Times. 2013;109:18–9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550485. Accessed 22 May 2017.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stoll L, Swanwick T, Foster-Turner J, Foster-Turner J, Moss F. Leadership development for junior doctors. Int J Leadersh Public Serv. 2011;7:233–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/17479881111194161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Miani C, Marjanovic S, Morgan M, Marshal M, Meikle S, Notle E. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University hospitals NHS trust fellowships in clinical leadership Programme an evaluation. London; 2013. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR367/RAND_RR367.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  35. Runnacles J, Moult B, Lachman P. Developing future clinical leaders for quality improvement: experience from a London children’s hospital. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:956–63. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fealy GM, McNamara MS, Casey M, O’Connor T, Patton D, Doyle L, et al. Service impact of a national clinical leadership development programme: findings from a qualitative study. J Nurs Manag. 2015;23:324–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Patton D, Fealy G, Mcnamara M, Casey M, Connor T, Doyle L, et al. Individual-level outcomes from a national clinical leadership development programme. Contemp Nurse. 2013;45:56–63. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2013.45.1.56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cleary M, Freeman A, Sharrock L. The development, implementation, and evaluation of a clinical leadership programme for mental health nurses. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2005;26:827–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840500184277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ferguson L, Calvert J, Davie M, Fallon M, Fred N, Gersbach V, et al. Clinical leadership: using observations of care to focus risk management and quality improvement activities in the clinical setting. Contemp Nurse. 2007;24:212–24. https://doi.org/10.5555/conu.2007.24.2.212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Williams AK, Parker VT, Milson-Hawke S, Cairney K, Peek C. Preparing clinical nurse leaders in a regional Australian teaching hospital. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2009;40:571–6. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20091119-04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Travaglia J, Debono D, Erez-Rein N, Milne J, Plumb J, Wiley J, et al. Report of the mid-program evaluation of “take the lead” Centre for Clinical Governance Research Australian Institute of health innovation. New South Wales; 2011. http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/medweb.nsf/page/ClinGov_About. Accessed 23 May 2017.

  42. Leggat SG, Smyth A, Balding C, McAlpine I. Equipping clinical leaders for system and service improvements in quality and safety: an Australian experience. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40:138–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12462.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kling VG. Clinical leadership project. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49:640–3. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100831-02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Abraham PJ. Developing nurse leaders. Nurs Adm Q. 2011;35:306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dierckx de Casterle B, Willemse A, Verschueren M, Milisen K. Impact of clinical leadership development on the clinical leader, nursing team and care-giving process: a case study. J Nurs Manag. 2008;16:753–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00930.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Martin JS, McCormack B, Fitzsimons D, Spirig R. Evaluation of a clinical leadership programme for nurse leaders. J Nurs Manag. 2012;20:72–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01271.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Crofts J, Ellis D, Draycott T, Winter C, Hunt L, Akande V. Change in knowledge of midwives and obstetricians following obstetric emergency training: a randomised controlled trial of local hospital, simulation Centre and teamwork training. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;114:1534–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01493.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Marinopoulos S, Dorman T, Ratanawongsa N, Wilson L, Ashar BH, Magaziner J, et al. Effectiveness of continuing medical education. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007:1–69 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764217. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  49. Cameron S, Rutherford I, Mountain K. Debating the use of work-based learning and interprofessional education in promoting collaborative practice in primary care: a discussion paper. Qual Prim Care. 2012;20:211–7 http://primarycare.imedpub.com/debating-the-use-of-workbased-learning-and-interprofessional-education-in-promoting-collaborative-practice-in-primary-care-a-discussion-paper.php?aid=317. Accessed 22 May 2017.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hardacre K, Schneider K. Work-based learning interim project report, overview of literature. PSE Consult Limited, People Ski Educ. 2007;5:1–35 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/work_based_learning_literature_review_30_october_07.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Coomarasamy A, Khan K. What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching in evidence based medicine changes anything? A systematic review. BMJ. 2004;329. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514348.

  52. Bluestone J, Johnson P, Fullerton J, Carr C, Alderman J, BonTempo J, et al. Effective in-service training design and delivery: evidence from an integrative literature review. Hum Resour Health. 2013;11:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-11-51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Raza A, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS. Best evidence continuous medical education. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280:683–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1128-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kerfoot BP, Kearney MC, Connelly D, Ritchey ML. Interactive spaced education to assess and improve knowledge of clinical practice guidelines. Ann Surg. 2009;249:744–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819f6db8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experiments and general causal inferences. In: Experiment and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. New York; 2002. http://impact.cgiar.org/pdf/147.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  56. Schilling K, Applegate R. Best methods for evaluating educational impact: a comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012;100:258–69. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bhandari A, Wagner T. Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63:217–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558705285298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. West M, Armit K, Loewenthal L, Eckert R, West T, Lee A. Leadership and Leadership Development in Health Care. London; 2015. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/leadership-leadership-development-health-care-feb-2015.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  59. Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:254–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Seifert CF, Yukl G, Mcdonald RA. Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:561–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.561.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This paper is part of a Doctoral study partly funded through a scholarship from the College of Health Sciences at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Public Health Medicine, Room 236, 2nd floor George Campbell Building, School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

    Solange Mianda & Anna Voce

Authors
  1. Solange Mianda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Voce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SM (University of KwaZulu-Natal) was the project leader involved throughout the study processes, from project design to write-up. AV (University of KwaZulu-Natal) is the first author’s PhD supervisor who made conceptual contributions and provided technical guidance throughout the writing processes (revising the article). Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solange Mianda.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mianda, S., Voce, A. Developing and evaluating clinical leadership interventions for frontline healthcare providers: a review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 18, 747 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3561-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3561-4

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us