Given the importance that can be placed on having physicians in healthcare leadership roles, there is a lot of pressure on those leaders to guide their teams to success. But what can help leaders truly make a difference?
Becker's connected with David Tannehill, DO, chief medical officer at Mercy Hospital Washington (Mo.) to discuss the key traits of physician leaders who go beyond simply holding a title.
Editor's note: Responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Question: What's missing in conversations between physicians and health systems?
Dr. David Tannehill: Historically, the missing link between physicians and health systems has been adequate, transparent, and comprehensive two-way communication. That hasn't always been present, but I believe it's changing. Healthcare systems have learned from past mistakes, and physician culture has evolved. Physicians today may be more open to understanding the needs of the healthcare corporation, providing an opportunity for better balance. There will always be some degree of conflict because physicians are hyper-focused on what's best for their patients, often developing strong opinions. Balancing that focus with the healthcare corporation's goals of caring for as many patients as possible requires clear, upfront conversations about potential friction points. Strong physician leadership with good communication skills is key, as it bridges the hyper focus on patient care with the bigger picture that healthcare corporations must keep in mind.
Q: What do you feel are the best practices to ensure those conversations are as transparent and authentic as possible?
DT: Overcommunication is crucial. When there's separation between the sides, it's important to overcommunicate the "why" behind decisions. Acknowledging every element of the feedback physicians provide is essential — not necessarily doing what they say, but recognizing their concerns and explaining decisions thoroughly. There will be times when we have to agree to disagree, but avoiding difficult conversations is the biggest mistake. Those hard conversations often lead to the best decisions and innovations.
One thing I've learned in my leadership role is to be up front when I know the news isn't going to be well received. Acknowledging that from the start — saying, "I know you're not going to like this, but here's what we have to do and why" — sets the stage for a more productive conversation. It's about working within constraints and helping physicians do what's best for their patients within those limits.
In addition to strong communication, following up is critical. If you say you're going to do something, you need to do it and circle back with the person you discussed it with. For example, if you promised to find an answer to a question, follow up with the answer and any resources that might help them understand it better. This shows that you're listening.
Q: When you say following up, do you mean with both the physician who raised the issue and the administrative side?
DT: Both sides need to do it. As a chief medical officer, I'm often in the middle — neither fully a physician nor fully an administrator — so I end up playing the role of negotiator or arbitrator between clinical and nonclinical leadership. Not everyone has the skill set to navigate that middle ground.
Q: Is that why it's important to have physicians in leadership positions?
DT: Absolutely. Healthcare corporations benefit from having strong physician leadership. It helps nonclinical leaders make better decisions and helps clinical leaders understand those decisions, even if they don't always agree. Strong physician leadership provides a frame of reference and method of explaining the decision-making process to physicians, who tend to be decisive and sometimes impatient. Transparency about the decision-making process is crucial, as is acknowledging that physicians are bright and will figure things out — possibly incorrectly — if they aren't fully informed.