EC Gynaecology

Appointment to clinical leadership in obstetrics and gynaecology brings professional recognition, but the authority and resources of the post may fall short of its responsibilities. Leaders must reconcile urgent clinical demands, reproductive autonomy, professional disagreement, workforce shortages and financial constraints. This critical narrative review examines how those pressures are experienced across health systems and when leadership becomes a poisoned chalice. Selected primary studies, maternity investigations and international workforce reports inform an appraisal of leadership perceptions, effectiveness and limitations. Investigations in England show how established governance arrangements can coexist with failures to listen and learn. Trials in India and African countries demonstrate that better adherence to care processes does not invariably improve clinical outcomes, although coordinated clinical interventions can achieve substantial benefit. These studies do not establish the superiority of any leadership style. Hierarchical, transformational, transactional, distributed, compassionate and adaptive approaches are examined in relation to their practical contributions and characteristic weaknesses. Particular attention is paid to gynaecology, unequal access to authority, responses to safety concerns and the uncertain relationship between reputation and performance. The article’s principal proposal is a reciprocal leadership compact, linking the leader’s accountability for conduct and decisions with the organisation’s obligation to provide authority, protected time, reliable information and timely responses to escalated risk. Leadership should be judged through patient experience, equitable access, working conditions and sustained clinical improvement. Its value ultimately depends on whether women and families receive dependable care when services come under pressure.

Keywords: Clinical Leadership; Obstetrics; Gynaecology; Governance; Accountability; Patient Safety; Organisational Culture; Health Equity

1. Boerma T., et al. "Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections". The Lancet10155 (2018): 1341-1348. 
2. Ockenden D. "Findings, conclusions and essential actions from the independent review of maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust". London: Department of Health and Social Care (2022). 
3. Kirkup B. "Reading the signals: maternity and neonatal services in East Kent—the report of the independent investigation". London: Department of Health and Social Care (2022). 
4. Care Quality Commission. "National review of maternity services in England 2022 to 2024: leadership and culture". Newcastle upon Tyne: CQC (2024). 
5. Bhatia M., et al. "An epidemic of avoidable caesarean deliveries in the private sector in India: is physician-induced demand at play?" Social Science & Medicine 265 (2020): 113511. 
6. United Nations Population Fund, International Confederation of Midwives and World Health Organization. "The state of the world's midwifery 2021". New York: UNFPA (2021). 
7. Dumont A., et al. "Quality of care, risk management, and technology in obstetrics to reduce hospital-based maternal mortality in Senegal and Mali (QUARITE): a cluster-randomised trial". The Lancet9887 (2013): 146-157. 
8. General Medical Council. "Fair to refer?" London: GMC (2019). 
9. Shanafelt T D., et al. "Impact of organizational leadership on physician burnout and satisfaction". Mayo Clinic Proceedings4 (2015): 432-440. 
10. Nembhard I M. and Edmondson A C. "Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams". Journal of Organizational Behavior7 (2006): 941-966. 
11. Riskin A., et al. "The impact of rudeness on medical team performance: a randomized trial". Pediatrics3 (2015): 487-495. 
12. Draycott T., et al. "Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome?" BJOG2 (2006): 177-182. 
13. Semrau K E A., et al. "Outcomes of a coaching-based WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program in India". The New England Journal of Medicine24 (2017): 2313-2324. 
14. Gallos I., et al. "Randomized trial of early detection and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage". The New England Journal of Medicine1 (2023): 11-21. 
15. Main E K., et al. "Reduction of severe maternal morbidity from hemorrhage using a state perinatal quality collaborative". American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology3 (2017): 298.e1-298.e11. 
16. World Health Organization. "Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities". Geneva: WHO (2016). 
17. Bohren M A., et al. "How women are treated during facility-based childbirth in four countries: a cross-sectional study with labour observations and community-based surveys". The Lancet10210 (2019): 1750-1763. 
18. Bourne T., et al. "Burnout, well-being and defensive medical practice among obstetricians and gynaecologists in the UK: cross-sectional survey study". BMJ Open11 (2019): e030968. 
19. World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund. "Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response: materials to support implementation". Geneva: World Health Organization (2021).