ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
An Exploratory Mixed Methods Study of Experiences of Interprofessional Teams Who Received Coaching to Simultaneously Redesign Primary Care Education and Clinical Practice.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving Human Experience in Health Care: Now More Than Ever, We Must Focus on People.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesCoaching is emerging as a form of facilitation in health professions education. Most studies focus on one-on-one coaching rather than team coaching. We assessed the experiences of interprofessional teams coached to simultaneously improve primary care residency training and interprofessional practice.
methodsThis three-year exploratory mixed methods study included transformational assistance from 9 interprofessional coaches, one assigned to each of 9 interprofessional primary care teams that included family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, nursing, pharmacy and behavioral health. Coaches interacted with teams during 2 in-person training sessions, an in-person site visit, and then as requested by their teams. Surveys administered at 1 year and end study assessed the coaching relationship and process.
resultsThe majority of participants (82% at end of Year 1 and 76.6% at end study) agreed or strongly agreed that their coach developed a positive working relationship with their team. Participants indicated coaches helped them: (1) develop as teams, (2) stay on task, and (3) respond to local context issues, with between 54.3% and 69.2% agreeing or strongly agreeing that their coaches were helpful in these areas. Cronbach's alpha for the 15 coaching survey items was 0.965. Challenges included aligning the coach's expertise with the team's needs.
conclusionsWhile team coaching was well received by interprofessional teams of primary care professionals undertaking educational and clinical redesign, the 3 primary care disciplines have much to learn from each other regarding how to improve inter- and intra-professional collaborative practice among clinicians and staff as well as with interprofessional learners rotating through their outpatient clinics.
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.