Leadership training in healthcare: a systematic umbrella review.
Phillipson J., Pinto AC., Kingsley-Smith H., Krachler N., McGivern G., Lyons O.
The importance of effective clinical leadership has been reflected in an increase in leadership development programmes. However, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal structure, content and evaluation of such programmes. This review synthesised evidence from reviews of leadership development interventions for healthcare professionals published prior to October 2024, including content, methods, evaluation strategies and impact. Title, abstract and full-text screening were conducted in duplicate by two reviewers. Data extraction was piloted by two reviewers and conducted by a single reviewer. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool by a single reviewer, with generative artificial intelligence serving as the second reviewer. 86 systematic and non-systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Regarding educational methods, leadership training effectiveness was associated with experiential learning, mixed-methods approaches, coaching or mentoring, longitudinal designs, goal-setting, and 360-degree feedback. Group learning and interprofessional education were noted for fostering teamwork. Programmes tailored to participants' needs and organisational contexts showed better outcomes. Content reported to be effective included interpersonal skills, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, leadership theory, communication and teamwork. Evaluations primarily relied on self-reported measures. Training outcomes were largely positive at the individual level, with participants reporting increased confidence and competence. Organisational and clinical outcomes were less frequently assessed. The long-term impact on patient outcomes and return on investment remains uncertain. Leadership development programmes were found to enhance individual competencies. However, evidence supporting long-term, system-wide impact remains limited due to reliance on self-reported evaluations and a lack of standardised evaluation approaches.