Comparing Virtual vs In-Person Immersive Leadership Training for Physicians

Claudia S P Fernandez; Caroline N Hays; Georgina Adatsi; Cheryl C Noble; Michelle Abel-Shoup; AnnaMarie Connolly

doi:10.2147/JHL.S411091

Comparing Virtual vs In-Person Immersive Leadership Training for Physicians

J Healthc Leadersh. 2023 Aug 11:15:139-152. doi: 10.2147/JHL.S411091. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Claudia S P Fernandez¹, Caroline N Hays¹, Georgina Adatsi¹, Cheryl C Noble², Michelle Abel-Shoup¹, AnnaMarie Connolly^{3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Maternal and Child Health, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
² Evaluation Consultant, Scotts Valley, CA, USA.
³ American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, USA.
⁴ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Emeritus), UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a disruption of in-person workforce development programs. Our immersive physician-oriented leadership institute suspended in 2020, resumed in 2021 with a virtual program, and in 2022 reconvened in-person training. We used this opportunity to compare the participant experience, including reported knowledge acquisition and ability gains, between these nearly identical curricula delivered in vastly different circumstances and formats.

Participants and methods: We describe the differences in immersive leadership training implementation and adaptations made for virtual vs in-person engagement of two cohorts of OB-GYN physicians. Data were collected from virtual (n=32) and in-person (n=39) participants via post-session surveys. Quantitative data reported includes participant ratings for knowledge gain and ability gain. Qualitative data were obtained via open-ended feedback questions per session and the overall experience.

Results: Knowledge and ability scores indicated strong, statistically significant gains in both formats, with some reported learning gains higher in the virtual training. Qualitative data of participant feedback identified a number of positive themes similar across the in-person and virtual settings, with virtual participants noting how construction of the virtual program produced highly effective experiences and engagement. Constructive or negative feedback of the virtual setting included time constraint issues (eg, a desire for more sessions overall or more time per session) and technical difficulties. Positive comments focused on the effectiveness of the experience in both formats and the surprising ability to connect meaningfully with others, even in a virtual environment. However, there were also many comments clearly supporting the preference for in-person over virtual experiences.

Conclusion: Immersive physician leadership training can be effectively delivered via virtual or in-person methods, resulting in significant reported gains of knowledge and skills. These programs provide valuable interpersonal connections and skills to support physician leadership. While both formats are effective, participants clearly prefer in-person leadership development experiences and interpersonal learning.

Keywords: leadership; onsite training; physicians; virtual training; workforce development.