Evaluation of a primary care triumvirate leadership development programme
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Evaluation of a primary care triumvirate leadership development programme

Jacqueline Leigh Reader teaching and learning, School of Health and Society, University of Salford, England
Lyn Rosen Lecturer, University of Salford, England
Emma Gillaspy Digital teaching and learning manager, University of Salford, England
Karen Storey Primary care lead nurse (workforce), training hub (CEPN) lead, Health Education England, West Midlands, England
Martin Wilkinson Director of postgraduate GP education, Health Education England, West Midlands, England

This article reports on triumvirate leadership development from the perspective of multiple stakeholder participant groups. These groups include the general practice nurse as well as general practitioner, practice manager, programme team and practice colleagues. It provides recommendations for future primary care triumvirate healthcare leadership development. Kirkpatrick’s (1983) four steps were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach. This is the standard model used to demonstrate the value of training across the organisation. Data were collected through individual and focus group interviews, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes relating to the four levels. Findings show that adopting a primary care triumvirate leadership approach provides a promising platform for putting the contemporary collective and distributed approaches to leadership development into operation.

Recommendations include how the nurse should be a legitimate triumvirate member, encouraged to develop leadership capability beyond the duration of the programme. Future programmes could benefit by adopting a multidimensional leadership development model. This would expose the primary care triumvirate leader to the evidence-based ‘Six Es’ approach to leadership development: evaluate, examine, exposure, education, environment, experience (NHS 2006, Leigh et al 2017).

Correspondence j.a.leigh4@salford.ac.uk

Primary Health Care. 27, 9,20-26. doi: 10.7748/phc.2017.e1298

Received: 31 March 2017

Accepted: 06 June 2017

Published in print: 30 October 2017

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict Of Interest

None declared