{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04559270516717325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013677811550151976, 'mean_word_length': 4.681034482758621, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
We need fewer leaders and more followers

Clinical leadership may be a dangerous concept. What does it mean? How do we know when we’ve got there? Is it mere puppetry in politicians’ interfering hands? Whatever the answer to these questions, the consensus is that clinical leadership is a good thing and we’ve been right to strive for decades to make it happen. But if everybody leads, who follows? “Leadership quangos abound,” says Partha Kar, a clinical leader himself, “courses are drip fed into email boxes, and conferences keep springing up” (doi:10.1136/bmj.l248). Any leader is only as good as the people who follow, so where are the quangos, emails, …