ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2021
Provider and coach perspectives on implementing shadow coaching to improve provider-patient interactions.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritizing ethical patient care responsibilities: A call to restructure student training practices in federally qualified health centers.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Shadow Coaching Improves Patient Experience for English-Preferring Patients but not for Spanish-Preferring Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare organizations want to improve patient care experiences. Some use 'shadow coaching' to improve interactions between providers and patients. A Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) implemented a half-day observation of individual primary-care providers by a 'shadow coach' during real-time patient visits, including an in-person verbal debrief afterwards and a written report with specific recommendations. Shadow coaching identified areas for improvement. We aimed to characterize lessons and barriers to implementing shadow coaching as a mechanism to improve interactions with patients and change organizational culture.
methodsWe examined provider and coach perceptions of shadow coaching through interviewing coached providers, stratified by provider type and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) performance, and the coaches who coached the most providers. We interviewed 19 coached providers and 2 coaches in a large, urban FQHC. Content analysis identified implementation barriers, facilitators and themes.
resultsCoaches reported needing 'buy-in' throughout the organization and the need to be credible and empathize with the providers being coached. Most providers reported behaviour changes based on recommendations. Almost all providers recalled at least one coaching recommendation that was actionable. Providers and coaches highlighted patient-level and practise-level barriers that impeded their ability to implement recommended improvements. CAHPS data was reported as an effective performance management metric for measuring change, counselling providers, and evaluating provider-level efforts but was not always specific enough to yield tangible recommendations.
conclusionsRegular messaging by leadership about the priority and purpose of shadow coaching was essential for both physician engagement and its mature implementation across the organization. Coaching could be embedded into a long-term strategy of professional development with periodic re-coaching. Re-coaching sessions could target issues raised by providers, such as dealing with difficult patients or specific populations. Research on the timing and content of re-coaching is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.