An Exploration of Program Director Leadership Practices in Nationally Accredited Paramedic Education Programs

Introduction—The number of paramedic education programs participating in the national accreditation process has nearly tripled in the past several years. Although accreditation standards describe program director roles and responsibilities, nothing has been formally studied regarding their leadership practices.

Purpose—The purpose of this study was to explore leadership practices of program directors in nationally accredited paramedic education programs.

Methods—The study was designed with an a posteriori epistemological stance, incorporated a constructivist perspective, and was conducted using qualitative methodology. It explored the perceptions and observations of uniquely qualified, elite subject matter experts (SMEs) to determine the leadership practices of nationally accredited paramedic education program directors. Twelve SMEs were purposefully selected based on the inclusive criteria of EMS educator, program director, and accreditation board member experiences. A series of in-depth, semistructured interviews using interpretive inquiry were conducted to explore the context, challenges, and best practices of program director leadership.

Results—EMS educator experience totaled 379 years (range: 10–40 years/SME). Program director experience totaled 223 years (range: 4–36 years/SME). Accreditation board experience totaled 87 years (range: 1–16 years/SME). Site visitor experience totaled 149 years (range: 1–32 years/SME). Participants ranked the specific positive leadership theories of “authentic, servant, ethical” as most important; whereas “charismatic, spiritual, and transformational,” although recognized, were less significant. The leadership skills theory (including human, technical, and conceptual skills) was also important to the sphere of leadership responsibilities of program directors. Findings revealed context and best practice themes which included a critical need for understanding and establishing a culture of quality. Significant challenge themes included the existence of an EMS identity crisis and generational dissonance.

Conclusions—Program director leadership is responsible for 75.44% of a program’s success, yet no formalized leadership curriculum or training exists. Subsequently, there is both a need for the development of a program director leadership curriculum as well as program director leadership training. This study added to the research literature and identifies leadership practices that may improve paramedic education programs. Further study in the field of paramedic education program director leadership practice is recommended.