ArticlePEC innovation2022
Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-based communication coaching model among hospital clinicians.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building a data-driven evaluation framework of physician wellness initiatives: a rapid review.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Communication coaching for sonographers (CCS): Preliminary evaluation of a novel intervention to improve unexpected news delivery.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Volume 1: Editorial - PEC Innovation.PEC innovation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Communication coaching shows promise for improving clinician communication yet few have assessed the feasibility of having peers coach each other. We conducted a proof-of-concept study to test the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-based communication coaching program in an inpatient setting. Methods: We trained three clinician communication coaches (two physicians and one physician assistant) and randomized half of the 27 clinicians working on the general medicine floor to receive coaching. The coaching involved shadowing and providing feedback on real-time encounters with patients. We collected data on feasibility of providing the coaching, quantitative and qualitative ratings of acceptability of the coaching both from the clinician and the coach perspective, and clinician burnout. Results: We found the peer coaching to be feasible and acceptable. Quantitative and qualitative reports support the merit of the coaching; most clinicians who received the coaching reported making changes in their communication. Clinicians in the intervention arm reported less burnout than those who did not receive the coaching. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept pilot showed that peer coaches can provide communication coaching and that clinicians and coaches viewed the coaching as acceptable and might change communication. The coaching also seems to show promise on burnout. We provide lessons learned and thoughts about how to improve the program. Innovation: Teaching clinicians to coach each other is innovative. We conducted a pilot that shows promise for feasibility, acceptability of clinicians coaching each other to communicate better, and a signal that it can help improve clinician burnout.
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.