The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1751-1879.htm

Filling the void in lesbian, gay, Leadership

bisexual, transgender and queer training

(LGBTQ1) leadership training

Highlights from the first annual Q-forward 113
(formerly Q-Med) conference Received 17 September 2019
Revised 19 November 2019
Michael T. Solotke 24 February 2020
Accepted 26 February 2020
Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Andrea Barbieri
Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Darin Latimore
Department of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, Connecticut, USA, and
John Encandela
Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Leadership training refers to the process of helping individuals develop skills to
successfully perform in leadership positions. Existing leadership programs have several drawbacks,
including the paucity of leadership programs designed for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer
(LGBTQþ) individuals in health care. The authors addressed this gap by creating and hosting
Q-Forward (formerly Q-Med), the first conference focused specifically on leadership development for
LGBTQþ health trainees.
Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, the authors explain how a conference focused on
leadership development for LGBTQþ health trainees can have benefits for trainees, patients and the health-
care system. The authors also report the conference proceedings, including planning, participants, guiding
principles and programming.
Originality/value – This conference was the first conference for LGBTQþ health trainees focused
specifically on leadership training. The authors believe that the conference was unique, and that such training
represents an essential step toward long-term improvements in the health of LGBTQþ people and other
populations.
Keywords Health leadership competencies, Health leadership initiatives, Leadership,
Health services
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction
Leadership training is a concept that is commonly discussed in many health-care settings
but that can be challenging to define. Although leadership training can be described in Leadership in Health Services
many ways, most definitions relate to the process of helping individuals develop skills to Vol. 33 No. 2, 2020
pp. 113-124
successfully perform in leadership positions. In addition to positions that may be viewed as © Emerald Publishing Limited
1751-1879
“traditional” leadership roles (e.g. deans, department chairs and hospital administrators), DOI 10.1108/LHS-09-2019-0062
LHS leadership positions in health care also include roles within advocacy, research, private
33,2 sector, policy and community organizations. Leadership also exists informally, when
individuals who do not hold formal management roles function as leaders within their
organizations. The emphasis on leadership training is not surprising given its potential
benefits, ranging from optimizing organizational efficiency to improving patient care and
outcomes (Angood and Birk, 2014; Sklar, 2018).
114 Although many programs have arisen to provide leadership training for medical
students, residents and faculty, many of these programs have limitations: these programs
often limit scope to a small population or a single institution, exclude health-care
professionals other than physicians, or teach skills that are not matched for the participants’
current and near-future roles (Dickerman et al., 2018; Maddalena, 2016; Matthews et al., 2018;
Rotenstein et al., 2019; Wagenschutz et al., 2019). Another important limitation of these
programs is that they may not address the unique facets of leading while also holding one or
more under-represented identities in medicine, such as race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual
orientation, socioeconomic status, nationality, or physical ability. The importance of
diversifying leadership and related training has been described, but efforts at implementing
this imperative have been slow to take effect and largely focus on issues of gender (Schor,
2018; Nivet, 2011; Spalluto et al., 2017). National dialogue within academic medicine has
recently emphasized the importance of racial and ethnic diversity in leadership, with
programs such as the Association of American Medical College (AAMC) Minority Faculty
Leadership Development Seminars [Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC),
2019]. However, leadership programs designed for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
queer (LGBTQþ) individuals in health care are virtually nonexistent (Fassinger et al., 2010).
In addition to these limitations, another important drawback of existing leadership
training programs is that when individuals holding under-represented identities are
groomed for leadership positions, these development efforts are often undertaken with the
goal of addressing health issues related to the under-represented identity. For example, a
trainee who identifies as gay may be trained with the assumption that they will hold a
leadership role related to LGBTQþ health issues, rather than being trained with the goal of
preparing LGBTQþ people for leadership positions to address the broader aim of improving
health care overall. Given the well-documented health disparities faced by LGBTQþ people,
this approach is not surprising; however, it may not provide the most effective long-term
strategy for improving the health of LGBTQþ people and other populations.
At our institution, we recognized and worked to address these gaps in leadership
training by hosting a conference called Q-Forward: Building LGBTQþ Leaders in Health
care, first titled “Q-Med” and hosted at Yale University from March 30-31, 2019. Q-Forward
was the first conference designed primarily for LGBTQþ health trainees focused
specifically on leadership development. The authors of this report include the co-chairs and
leadership partner of the Yale School of Medicine Dean’s Advisory Council on LGBTQþ
Affairs, which sponsored and planned the conference. In this article, our objectives are:
 to articulate the critical importance of LGBTQþ leadership training; and
 to report the conference proceedings from the 2019 Q-Forward conference.

Case for LGBTQ1 leadership development amongst health professional

trainees
The importance of diversifying academic medicine has been underscored by many
organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), 2019. We
agree with this imperative and believe that this crucial goal is germane more broadly in
health care and health-care-adjacent fields, such as policy, industry and the non-profit
sector. In addition to the previously described rationales for diversifying academic medicine, Leadership
we believe that there are many benefits for trainees, for patients and for the health-care
system at large. However, LGBTQþ people face several barriers to pursuing leadership
training
roles, including mistreatment and lack of leadership training opportunities (Nama et al.,
2017; Przedworski et al., 2015). We believe that leadership development specifically focused
on LGBTQþ health trainees can address some of these barriers by providing skills that can
be used to pursue and excel in leadership positions. We outline here some of the most salient 115
arguments for providing LGBTQþ leadership training in the format of a national
conference.

Benefits for trainees

By curating programming to focus on leadership training for LGBTQþ people, the Q-
Forward conference explored the unique challenges and opportunities of leading while also
maintaining one’s sense of self as an LGBTQþ person. Research from organizational
psychology shows that leadership identity forms by merging a person’s individual identity
with a group or role identity; this relationship becomes more complex when a leader is not
“prototypical of their groups by virtue of their gender, race, age, or national culture” (Ibarra
et al., 2014). Extrapolating this relationship to sexual orientation and gender identity and
considering the important role that identity plays in how leaders lead, we felt that it was
essential to create opportunities for attendees to consider how their LGBTQþ identities
could influence and strengthen their leadership styles. Workshop content and plenary
lectures addressed these concepts explicitly.
In addition to providing attendees with skill development opportunities, the conference
provided an occasion to build a professional network of colleagues and mentors. A broad,
diverse, inter-professional and supportive network can provide many benefits, such as:
collaboration opportunities, exposure to varying perspectives and experiences, personal
support and the chance to learn from and share ideas with trainees and professionals
interested in engaging with similar issues. The conference also allowed trainees to meet
successful LGBTQþ leaders, facilitating exploration of effective LGBTQþ leadership.
Importantly, although the primary audience of the conference was LGBTQþ people, we
welcomed attendees who did not hold those identities so that the conference dialogue,
networking and learning could extend outside the LGBTQþ community.
Finally, considering the challenges and stress faced by all LGBTQþ trainees and
especially those involved in advocacy work (Nama et al., 2017; Przedworski et al., 2015), we
felt that the conference needed to address skills that trainees could use to persevere through
this burden. This need was further reinforced by the abundant and compelling reports
describing bias and discrimination faced by LGBTQþ people in health-care workplaces
(Mansh et al., 2015; Schuster, 2012; Eliason et al., 2011). Several workshops directly
addressed this need by cultivating skills such as communication, self-care, knowledge
building and handling difficult conversations. These useful skills can benefit trainees in
their LGBTQþ advocacy work and in future leadership roles that will invariably require
these abilities. The conference also included multiple opportunities for celebration, which
affirmed and validated attendees’ diverse identities and value in health care.

Benefits for the health-care system and for patients

We view the potential benefits of LGBTQþ leadership training as occurring through two
avenues: development of leaders in the care of LGBTQþ people and through distribution of
LGBTQþ people in a broad set of roles related to health care. Our conference goal was
LHS therefore two-fold: to train leaders focused specifically on addressing health care of
33,2 LGBTQþ people and to provide leadership training for LGBTQþ people who plan to
pursue careers in health care.
The health disparities faced by LGBTQþ people are deeply rooted in a broad range of
structural inequities, including issues related to access to care, experiences of discrimination
and stigma from health-care providers (Graham et al., 2011; Kates et al., 2018; Ard and
116 Makadon, 2012). Provider bias, including both conscious and unconscious bias, are partially
responsible for these inequities. The conference openly acknowledged these factors and
provided both time and space to help trainees understand, question and change these
structures perpetuating LGBTQþ discrimination. For example, one workshop addressed
curriculum issues and the role of health professional schools in creating a generation of more
LGBTQþ-affirming providers and one plenary session explored the disproportionate
impact of incarceration on LGBTQþ people and their health.
One important way of addressing these structural inequities involves building a pipeline
of LGBTQþ people into leadership positions, both in and outside of academic medicine.
Increasing the number of LGBTQþ people in leadership positions within many health-care-
related organizations can serve as a step toward the goal of amplifying the diverse voices of
patients and centering their unique needs. This process can ultimately allow leaders to drive
organizations toward improving the rights and health of LGBTQþ people, but it requires a
substantial investment of resources and a long-term focus. This strategy also requires
LGBTQþ leaders to hold leadership positions in a broad set of organizations, including
many outside of academic medicine. For example, involving LGBTQþ leaders in local, state
and national policy organizations could facilitate positive changes at the level of laws and
regulations. Accordingly, the conference was explicitly not an academic medicine
conference, addressing instead a broader focus.
Finally, cultivating future LGBTQþ leaders has potential benefits for the culture of
academic medicine and health care more broadly. By offering participants the skills and
resources to enter their careers empowered to acknowledge and embrace their LGBTQþ
identities, we hope that trainees feel emboldened to create a culture of visibility at health-
care institutions. Given the strong connection between knowing someone who is LGBTQþ
and both opinions about and bias toward LGBTQþ people, this process can ideally improve
culture and attitudes toward LGBTQþ people, including patients (Pew Research Center,
2013; Wittlin et al., 2019). This phenomenon also motivated our inclusion of conference
attendees who did not identify as LGBTQþ, although these were a minority of attendees.

Conference proceedings from Q-forward 2019: building LGBTQ1 leaders in

health care
Planning
The conference was sponsored and planned by the Yale School of Medicine Dean’s Advisory
Council on LGBTQþ Affairs. Although this group’s primary focus includes the university’s
LGBTQþ community in health professional and graduate programs, the council identified a
national need to address LGBTQþ leadership in health care. A thorough perusal of national
conferences drawing health professional trainee audiences showed that there did not exist
an annual conference with the specific goal of leadership training across a wide-range of
areas in health care and health-care education.
Conference planning began approximately 18 months before the conference date. Initial
discussions involved alignment on the primary aim of the conference and the geographic
extent of the prospective audience. Subsequent decisions included conference format, scope
of topics, and generation of ideas for a keynote speaker and for other primary presenters. An
end-of-March weekend conference date was felt to fit in most optimally with medical and
other health professional trainees’ schedules, and this date was finalized approximately one Leadership
year in advance of the conference. The conference name was chosen to evoke the conference
goal: “Q” is an abbreviation for “Queer”, a positive and preferred term among many
training
LGBTQþ individuals that is used to represent the broad swath of sexual and gender
minority individuals; the word “Forward” elicits progress toward our goal of addressing the
LGBTQþ leadership gap. All of these planning decisions were through consensus from the
planning committee and from community buy-in. 117
The conference was advertised through a conference website and through
advertisements in select academic journals. Outreach occurred primarily through hold-the-
date and invitational emails sent to a wide swath of organizations and individuals related to
education and LGBTQþ interests (e.g. organization of diversity deans; student affairs deans
and other leadership; LGBTQþ-specific organizations at health professional schools).

Participants
171 individuals attended the conference. Participants included medical students (44 per
cent), faculty (10 per cent), undergraduates (8 per cent), residents and fellows (7 per cent),
nursing students (6 per cent), public health students (6 per cent), other graduate students (5
per cent), licensed providers (5 per cent), researchers/research assistants (4 per cent),
physician associate (PA) students (1 per cent), and other individuals (4 per cent). At least 38
institutions were represented, and attendees came from three countries (United States,
Canada, Brazil). Geographically, 80.7 per cent of attendees were from the Northeast, 6.8
per cent from the Midwest, 5 per cent from the Northwest, 2.5 per cent from the Southeast,
2.5 per cent from the Southwest and 2.5 per cent from outside of the United States. Most, but
not all, attendees identified as LGBTQþ.

Guiding principles
Several underlying principles guided our conference planning process and supported our
vision for the conference. First, to ensure that the conference would be widely accessible to
health professional trainees, we did not charge a registration fee. We also created a student
hosting program to reduce housing costs, and provided travel assistance for certain
attendees demonstrating financial need. We recognized that many potential attendees would
not have financial support from their institutions to attend the conference – and that these
same attendees may have been unable to attend other LGBTQþ-focused conferences in the
past due to financial constraints – and therefore believed it was important to take measures
to optimize affordability for the conference.
Second, sessions were designed to be interactive and skill-oriented. We wanted
participants to leave each session with concrete skills or ideas for next steps that they could
employ at their own institutions and in their future careers as leaders, and we strove to make
these goals clear for each session. The session formats were designed to be interactive,
which supported this aim. Attendees had the opportunity to submit questions and
comments in real-time, and most sessions began with discussion or reflections based on
these questions, ultimately creating an ongoing dialogue.
Third, we wove the concept of intersectionality into our programming. Intersectionality
emphasizes the overlap between various types of identities an individual may hold. To
incorporate intersectionality into our conference programming, we invited speakers who
could address these issues. These identities extended beyond sexual orientation and gender
identity, and included race, socioeconomic status, physical ability, incarceration history,
nationality, religion, and others. Intersectionality was addressed in sessions such as “Why
LHS should LGBTQ leadership be concerned about state violence in LGBTQ communities of
33,2 color?” and was stressed in many of the comments and questions submitted by attendees
throughout the conference.
Fourth, we made this conference an explicitly interdisciplinary conference. Although
many LGBTQþ health events have traditionally focused on the physician community, we
felt it was important to include a broader cross-section of the health-care community. We
118 determined that this approach would be appropriate both given the conference’s emphasis
on leadership and because of the potential for interdisciplinary dialogue to enrich the
conference content. In addition to including an interdisciplinary set of conference attendees,
our speakers and workshop leaders represented several professions, including those with
the following degrees: DNP, JD, MBA, MD, MPH, PA, and PhD.
Finally, we sought to involve the New Haven community. We recognized the complex
dynamics between Yale University (Q-Forward’s hosting institution) and the New Haven
community, and also that the ultimate goal of our work was to improve the health of
patients. We therefore understood the importance of including our local community in the
conference. We achieved this goal by inviting community members to lead workshops,
inviting local community members to display their artwork at our conference, and hosting
an evening social event at a queer-owned restaurant with a performance by members from
the local Pride center.

Programming and key takeaways

The conference programming included five components all focused on LGBTQþ leadership:
plenary sessions (six, including one keynote address), panel discussions (two), concurrent
workshops (two sessions), poster presentations, and social events (Table AI).
The plenary sessions provided multiple perspectives on LGBTQþ health-care
leadership. In the first plenary session, entitled “Queer History and American Medicine”, a
historian described both the longstanding discrimination that LGBTQþ patients and
providers have faced and the ways in which LGBTQþ activists have advocated to improve
the health care of LGBTQþ people. The examples in this presentation provided a model for
activism as a form of leadership.
The second plenary session, led by a physician who oversees diversity, equity, and
inclusion efforts at a medical school, challenged participants to define LGBTQþ leadership
and to interrogate their own interests in leadership. Qualities such as vision, courage,
influence, motivation, empathy, emotional intelligence, resilience, and a dedication to service
were emphasized as important aspects of effective leadership. The presenter also engaged
the audience in a discussion around whether being an LGBTQþ health-care leader implies a
moral responsibility to build a career focused on addressing LGBTQþ health disparities. At
the end of this session, there was not consensus regarding the answer to this question. This
finding was consistent with our goal of including participants who planned to pursue
leadership in LGBTQþ health care and participants who planned to pursue leadership roles
that are not focused specifically on LGBTQþ people.
The keynote address was entitled “Queering Leadership” (Sharman, 2019), and explored
how the experiences and perspectives of queer identities can shape and strengthen
leadership styles. In addition to highlighting how queering leadership requires rejecting the
status quo in favor of change, the speaker highlighted five qualities that embody the act of
queering leadership. This session was received with a standing ovation.
In “Why should LGBTQ leadership be concerned about state violence in LGBTQ
communities of color?”, a nurse practitioner who is an expert on LGBTQþ health care
highlighted the underrepresentation of various minority groups in health-care leadership
positions. The presenter also described how LGBTQþ communities (especially those of
color) are disproportionally impacted by incarceration and state violence, and connected this Leadership
disproportionate impact with the underrepresentation of minority groups in leadership
positions. The session concluded with several recommendations that can be implemented by
training
individuals to address these inequities.
To highlight other ways for health-care professionals to engage in leadership, a
physician with government experience led a plenary session entitled “How Healthcare
Leaders Interface with Government”. In this session, the presenter described the value of 119
health-care professionals engaging with government, and asserted that more health-care
professionals are needed in all levels of government. They also discussed the burden of
having many passions and knowing ones’ own limits, and suggested strategies to maintain
a healthy level of involvement with leadership work.
The final plenary session, “Healthcare Leaders in Law and Policy”, was led by a lawyer
and health policy expert. The presenter emphasized that the majority of a person’s health is
determined by social and environmental factors such as income, access to health care, access
to adequate healthy food, housing, education, job stability, and personal safety and that
most of the social conditions at the root of poor health can be traced to civil legal needs. The
presenter described how health-care professionals can engage in leadership in order to
impact these social and environmental factors, and how one way to do so is by collaborating
with legal professionals through medical legal partnerships, legislative advocacy,
institutional advocacy, and participation in litigation.
The panel discussions were entitled “Questions for LGBTQþ Leaders in Healthcare” and
“How to be Out While Applying”. These interactive sessions were designed to allow
participants to consider challenges and opportunities in leadership for LGBTQþ people,
including through discussion of practical suggestions for individuals early in their career.
Most interactive workshops were conducted in groups of 25 or fewer participants.
Descriptions of these workshops can be found in Table AII. Each workshop was structured
for participants to focus on at least one concrete skill that could benefit them as future
leaders. For example, in “Dealing with Difficult Moments: Everyday Acts of Diversity and
Inclusion”, participants practiced using humor during challenging interactions that occur in
leadership roles. Similarly, the leader of “What a Journalist Can Teach You About
Communicating Better” explored the importance of communication skills in leadership roles
and led participants in communication exercises. Other workshops sought to develop skills
such as collaborating with school administrators, the use of art to foster resilience, and
bystander interventions. In several of these workshops, participants described how leaders
at their institutions were unfamiliar with or even resistant to the needs of LGBTQþ people.
In addition to underscoring the importance of LGBTQþ leadership, these discussions
provided opportunities to discuss approaches for communicating with leaders.
The poster session was comprised of 22 posters, including curriculum and training
projects, research projects, case reports, clinical guideline development reports, and projects
related to community outreach, networking, and support. A social event was held at a local
queer-owned establishment and included a performance from members of the local Pride
Center. Although there was a networking component to the social event, it was largely
intended to be a celebratory event.

Future directions
As we plan for the future of Q-Forward, we have considered several logistical questions.
First, we envision the conference to be annual. Although we considered a biennial
conference, we decided against this option because some participants may be in training
LHS programs lasting only two to three years and because we believe that the need for LGBTQþ
33,2 leadership training is strong enough to justify an annual conference. Additional future plans
include location (possibly rotating between multiple institutions interested in hosting the
conference) and format (feedback from participants indicated a strong interest in the
conference involving a collective effort toward a project with a concrete deliverable). We also
plan to survey attendees to understand whether and how they have employed the skills they
120 learned at Q-Forward, which will support our efforts to continually refine the conference
content.
Feedback and observations from the conference have guided the planning process for the
second iteration of the conference. For example, because many attendees reported that they
have an interest in further exploring activism as a form of leadership, the second conference
will include two sessions on LGBTQþ activism in health care: one led by a historian and
one led by an experienced activist. Additionally, there will be multiple sessions focused on
race and racism in medicine, given the productive dialogue on this topic at the first
conference, the well-established racial disparities in health care, and the importance of this
topic to effective leadership. Finally, because many attendees expressed an interest in
leadership through research, there will be workshops focused on developing research skills.
We are also planning for conference sustainability. From a financial perspective,
sustaining a conference can be challenging. Our conference benefited from substantial
financial and administrative support from our institution’s medical school. For future
iterations of the conference, we plan to engage the many stakeholders within our institution
who may have an interest in the development of LGBTQþ leaders, including other health
professional schools and the university. There are also other LGBTQþ organizations –
within the university and in our local community – that may be interested in sponsoring
some aspects of the event. From a human resources perspective, we recognize the
considerable time and energy required to maintain an annual conference. One strategy to
address this challenge is engaging a wide-ranging group of individuals invested in the
mission and success of the conference. Because the conference is national in scope and not
regionally or locally restricted, we have the ability to recruit and include a broad group of
collaborators. Over the long-term, we hope that the conference design will increase the pool
of LGBTQþ people engaged in leadership, since it includes all LGBTQþ people in health
care rather than only targeting those interested in serving LGBTQþ patients.

Conclusion
Q-Forward was an innovative and first-of-its-kind conference with a mission to train the
next generation of LGBTQþ leaders in policy, research, clinical care, and education. While
there are several national and regional LGBTQþ-focused health-care conferences,
Q-Forward was the first to explicitly structure the conference content around developing
leadership skills. This approach invited a diverse group of students in health care to
participate in a unique set of opportunities designed to appeal to those that may be working
directly to eliminate health disparities within the LGBTQþ community, those that may face
discrimination as providers in the health-care system, and those that want to develop
leadership skills in a supportive environment that acknowledges and embraces their
identities. We believe this structure and focus accurately reflect, acknowledge, encourage,
and celebrate the many varied ways that LGBTQþ individuals contribute to the health-care
system. There are many potential benefits from our conference, including increased
presence and visibility of LGBTQþ health-care leaders, a strengthened pipeline of future
LGBTQþ leaders, improved awareness of structural inequities leading to LGBTQþ stigma
and discrimination, and increased resilience among trainees. Approximately 30 per cent of
registrants for the second iteration of Q-Forward attended the first conference, which we
view to be a strong indication that attendees found the conference to be a valuable Leadership
experience. We hope that Q-Forward will train, empower, and inspire motivated future
leaders to change the culture of health care, which can ultimately improve care for all .
training

References
Angood, P. and Birk, S. (2014), “The value of physician leadership”, Physician Exec, Vol. 40 No. 3, 121
pp. 6-20.
Ard, K.L. and Makadon, H.J. (2012), Improving the Health Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender (LGBT) People: Understanding and Eliminating Health Disparities, The National
LGBT Health Education Center, The Fenway Institute, Boston, MA.
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (2019), “Minority faculty leadership
development seminar”, available at: www.aamc.org/members/leadership/catalog/323116/
minorityfacultyleadershipdevelopmentseminar.html (accessed 13 September 2019).
Dickerman, J., Sánchez, J.P., Portela-Martinez, M. and Roldan, E. (2018), “Leadership and academic
medicine: preparing medical students and residents to be effective leaders for the 21st century”,
MedEdPORTAL, Vol. 14, pp. 10677-10677.
Eliason, M.J., Dibble, S.L. and Robertson, P.A. (2011), “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
physicians’ experiences in the workplace”, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 58 No. 10,
pp. 1355-1371.
Fassinger, R.E., Shullman, S.L. and Stevenson, M.R. (2010), “Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm”, The American Psychologist, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 201-215.
Graham, R., Berkowitz, B., Blum, R., Bockting, W., Bradford, J., De Vries, B. and Makadon, H. (2011),
The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better
Understanding, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, 89-139.
Ibarra, H., Wittman, S., Petriglieri, G. and Day, D.V. (2014), “Leadership and identity: an examination of
three theories and new research directions”, Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kates, J., Ranji, U., Beamesderfer, A., Salganicoff, A. and Dawson, L. (2018), “Health and access to care
and coverage for lesbian”, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Individuals in the US, Kaiser
Family Foundation.
Maddalena, V. (2016), “Leadership training for undergraduate medical students”, Leadership in Health
Services (Bradford, England), Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 348-351.
Mansh, M., White, W., Gee-Tong, L., Lunn, M.R., Obedin-Maliver, J., Stewart, L., Goldsmith, E.,
Brenman, S., Tran, E., Wells, M., Fetterman, D. and Garcia, G. (2015), “Sexual and gender
minority identity disclosure during undergraduate medical education: ‘in the closet’ in medical
school”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 634-644.
Matthews, J.H., Morley, G.L., Crossley, E. and Bhanderi, S. (2018), “Teaching leadership: the medical
student society model”, The Clinical Teacher, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-150.
Nama, N., Macpherson, P., Sampson, M. and McMillan, H.J. (2017), “Medical students’ perception of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) discrimination in their learning environment
and their self-reported comfort level for caring for LGBT patients: a survey study”, Medical
Education Online, Vol. 22 No. 1, p. 1368850.
Nivet, M.A. (2011), “Commentary: Diversity 3.0: a necessary systems upgrade”, Academic Medicine :
Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Vol. 86 No. 12, pp. 1487-1489.
Pew Research Center (2013), A Survey of LGBT Americans: Chapter 2, Social Acceptance. Washington,
DC.
LHS Przedworski, J.M., Dovidio, J.F., Hardeman, R.R., Phelan, S.M., Burke, S.E., Ruben, M.A., Perry, S.P.,
Burgess, D.J., Nelson, D.B., Yeazel, M.W., Knudsen, J.M. and Van Ryn, M. (2015), “A comparison
33,2 of the mental health and well-being of sexual minority and heterosexual first-year medical
students: a report from the medical student CHANGE study”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 90 No. 5,
pp. 652-659.
Rotenstein, L., Perez, K., Wohler, D., Sanders, S., Im, D., Kazberouk, A. and Phillips, R.S. (2019),
“Preparing health professions students to lead change”, Leadership in Health Services (Bradford,
122 England), Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 182-194.
Schor, N.F. (2018), “The decanal divide: women in decanal roles at US Medical schools”, Academic
Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 237-240.
Schuster, M.A. (2012), “On being gay in medicine”, Academic Pediatrics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 75-78.
Sharman, Z. (2019), “Queering leadership [online]”, available at: https://zenasharman.com/blog/
queering-leadership (accessed 13 September 2019).
Sklar, D.P. (2018), “Leadership in academic medicine: purpose, people, and programs”, Academic
Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 145-148.
Spalluto, L.B., Spottswood Se, Diette, L.A., Chern, A. and Dewey, C.M. (2017), “A leadership
intervention to further the training of female faculty (LIFT-OFF) in radiology”, Academic
Radiology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 709-716.
Wagenschutz, H., McKean, E.L., Mangrulkar, R., Zurales, K. and Santen, S. (2019), “A first-year
leadership programme for medical students”, The Clinical Teacher, Vol. 16 No. 6.
Wittlin, N.M., Dovidio, J.F., Burke, S.E., Przedworski, J.M., Herrin, J., Dyrbye, L., Onyeador, I.N., Phelan,
S.M. and Vay Ryn, M. (2019), “Contact and role modeling predict bias against lesbian and gay
individuals among early-career physicians: a longitudinal study”, Social Science & Medicine,
Vol. 238, p. 112422.

Corresponding author
Michael T. Solotke can be contacted at: michael.solotke@yale.edu
Appendix
Leadership
training
Saturday, March 30, 2019
7:30 am Registration and breakfast
8:45 am Welcome and introduction
9:00 am History of LGBTQþ leaders in health care
9:40 am Defining LGBTQþ leadership 123
10:15 am Keynote address
11:15 am Lunch
12:45 pm Panel discussion: questions for LGBTQIþ leaders in health care
1:55 pm Panel discussion: how to be out while applying
5:00 pm Social/networking event
Sunday, March 31, 2019
7:30 am Breakfast
8:30 am Why should LGBTQ leadership be concerned about state violence in LGBTQ
communities of color?
9:10 am How health-care leaders interface with government
10:00 am Workshop session #1
11:30 am Lunch
12:30 pm Workshop session #2 Table AI.
2:10 pm Health-care leaders in law and policy Q-Forward
2:40 pm Closing conference agenda
LHS Workshop title Description
33,2
Dealing with Difficult Moments: Everyday Acts of This workshop focused on three primary topics:
Diversity and Inclusion What does it feel like to have “a sense of humor”?
How do we understand the difference between
intention and impact?
Why does “resilience” matter?
124 What a Journalist Can Teach You About This workshop involved three components:
Communicating Better Putting together a mock news segment with a CNN
producer
Answering the question, “How do health care
professionals communicate differently from patients
and the media?”
Learning the different elements of a news story, how
different topics end up in the media, and why this
matters for being a leader in health care
Student Leadership and Curriculum Building This workshop was a facilitated discussion about
student involvement with curriculum design and
implementation, structured around six key elements:
Assessing curricular needs
Identifying and gaining cooperation from key
stakeholders
Designing curricular material
Ensuring institutionalization of curriculum
Evaluating curriculum and sharing results
Curriculum design principles
Art and Self-Care The presenter incorporated his experience as an
artist and author to engage participants in a session
about:
Leveraging the power of positive thinking
Utilizing effective self-care
Learning how to develop compassion, kindness, and
empathy toward patients and oneself
Transgender Healthcare This workshop included:
Discussion of the evolution of transgender health
over the last 30 years
Conversation about the future of transgender health
care
Opportunities for health-care providers to learn and
provide transgender health care
Description of the growth and evolution of one
particular health clinic for gender minority patients
Speaking Up, Speaking Out: Bystander Training This workshop was structured around cases
with a Focus on Sexual and Gender Minorities in involving LGBTQþ patients and/or providers, and
Medicine involved:
Facilitated discussion about disrespectful and
discriminatory behaviors and situations in clinical
and classroom settings
Exploration of how trainees may encourage more
Table AII: inclusive and supportive behaviors
Summary of Emphasis on ways that trainees may intervene
Q-Forward effectively in light of their position within the health
workshops care and learning environments