You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Assessment of leadership development in the medical undergraduate curriculum: a UK consensus statement
  1. Tim Swanwick1,2,
  2. Judy McKimm3
  1. 1 NHS Leadership Academy, NHS Improvement, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  2. 2 Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management, London, UK
  3. 3 Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Tim Swanwick, NHS Leadership Academy, NHS Improvement, Leeds LS1 4BJ, UK; tim.swanwick{at}leadershipacademy.nhs.uk

Abstract

With the increasing prominence of leadership within the medical undergraduate curriculum, assessment becomes a significant issue. In the absence of evidence to support specific strategies, tools or approaches, faculty from universities across the UK came together in October 2019 in a workshop convened by the Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management. The workshop aimed to develop a collective view on the assessment of leadership development in the medical undergraduate curriculum. This resulting consensus statement was generated around five prompts: why, what, how, when and who? In addition to the statement’s key messages, several questions for further exploration were defined. See Box 1.

  • assessment
  • clinical leadership
  • development
  • leadership assessment
  • student

https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000229

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @jamckimm

  • Contributors Both authors conceived the workshop, facilitated the discussion and produced a first draft of the statement. Following feedback from participants, both authors contributed to the revised statement and collaborated on subsequent responses to editorial comments.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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