Implementing a collaborative coaching intervention for professionals providing care to children and their families: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing complexity of healthcare requires family and interprofessional partnerships to deliver effective care. Interprofessional coaching can enhance family-centred practice and collaboration. The purpose of this study was to explore the acceptability and feasibility of collaborative coaching training to improve family centredness within acute paediatric rehabilitation. Using a participatory action design, service providers (SPs; n = 36) underwent a 6-month coaching programme involving coaching workshops, learning triads, and tailored sessions with a licensed coach. The feasibility and acceptability of coaching on SPs' family interactions and care was explored. Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC) and MPOC-SP, a coaching skills questionnaire, and focus groups were used to evaluate the acceptability of coaching training. We found that structured coaching training was feasible and SPs reported significant improvements in their coaching skills; however, MPOC and MPOC-SP scores did not reveal significant differences. Qualitative themes indicated that clinicians are developing coaching competencies and applying these skills in clinical practice. Participants perceived that the coaching approach strengthened relationships amongst colleagues, and they valued the opportunity for interprofessional learning. Findings suggest that coaching offers promise as an approach to facilitate successful patient outcomes and improve processes of care. Preliminary findings indicate that interprofessional coaching training is acceptable, feasible, and can significantly improve SP coaching skills and improve team cohesion. Further research to study the effects of coaching on interprofessional care using validated outcome measures and to assess the impact on service delivery is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".