Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Evaluating the impact of a national clinical leadership fellow scheme
  1. Judy McKimm1,
  2. Donna Hickford2,
  3. Peter Lees2,
  4. Kirsten Armit2
  1. 1 Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK
  2. 2 Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Donna Hickford, Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management, London NW1 4LB, UK; donna.hickford{at}fmlm.ac.uk

Footnotes

  • Contributors JM led the evaluation and drafted the paper. JM and DH are responsible for the overall content of the paper. KA and PL contributed to the paper.

  • Funding This study was funded by Faculty of Medical Leadership & Management.

  • Competing interests DH, KA and PL are intimately involved with the management of the Scheme and have been responsible for its development since its inception. JM carried out the evaluation on behalf of the FMLM and the Scheme.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Formal ethics approval was not required for the evaluation; however, participants were fully informed about the evaluation process and outputs, involvement in the evaluation was optional (including cohort 6 who were undertaking the Scheme when the evaluation was being carried out), all identifying information relating to the Fellows was removed, and anonymity was assured through a randomised coding of respondents.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors JM led the evaluation and drafted the paper. JM and DH are responsible for the overall content of the paper. KA and PL contributed to the paper.

  • Funding This study was funded by Faculty of Medical Leadership & Management.

  • Competing interests DH, KA and PL are intimately involved with the management of the Scheme and have been responsible for its development since its inception. JM carried out the evaluation on behalf of the FMLM and the Scheme.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Formal ethics approval was not required for the evaluation; however, participants were fully informed about the evaluation process and outputs, involvement in the evaluation was optional (including cohort 6 who were undertaking the Scheme when the evaluation was being carried out), all identifying information relating to the Fellows was removed, and anonymity was assured through a randomised coding of respondents.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.