Marjorie M Godfrey1, Boel Andersson-Gare, Eugene C Nelson, Mats Nilsson, Gerd Ahlstrom. 1. Student, School of Health Sciences, and Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden; The Dartmouth Institute Microsystem Academy, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate health care improvement team coaching activities from the perspectives of coachees, coaches and unit leaders in two national improvement collaboratives. BACKGROUND: Despite numerous methods to improve health care, inconsistencies in success have been attributed to factors that include unengaged staff, absence of supportive improvement resources and organisational inertia. METHODS: Mixed methods sequential exploratory study design, including quantitative and qualitative data from interprofessional improvement teams who received team coaching. The coachees (n = 382), coaches (n = 9) and leaders (n = 30) completed three different data collection tools identifying coaching actions perceived to support improvement activities. RESULTS: Coachees, coaches and unit leaders in both collaboratives reported generally positive perceptions about team coaching. Four categories of coaching actions were perceived to support improvement work: context, relationships, helping and technical support. CONCLUSIONS: All participants agreed that regardless of who the coach is, emphasis should include the four categories of team coaching actions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Leaders should reflect on their efforts to support improvement teams and consider the four categories of team coaching actions. A structured team coaching model that offers needed encouragement to keep the team energized, seems to support health care improvement.
AIM: To investigate health care improvement team coaching activities from the perspectives of coachees, coaches and unit leaders in two national improvement collaboratives. BACKGROUND: Despite numerous methods to improve health care, inconsistencies in success have been attributed to factors that include unengaged staff, absence of supportive improvement resources and organisational inertia. METHODS: Mixed methods sequential exploratory study design, including quantitative and qualitative data from interprofessional improvement teams who received team coaching. The coachees (n = 382), coaches (n = 9) and leaders (n = 30) completed three different data collection tools identifying coaching actions perceived to support improvement activities. RESULTS: Coachees, coaches and unit leaders in both collaboratives reported generally positive perceptions about team coaching. Four categories of coaching actions were perceived to support improvement work: context, relationships, helping and technical support. CONCLUSIONS: All participants agreed that regardless of who the coach is, emphasis should include the four categories of team coaching actions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Leaders should reflect on their efforts to support improvement teams and consider the four categories of team coaching actions. A structured team coaching model that offers needed encouragement to keep the team energized, seems to support health care improvement.
Authors: Heather M Gilmartin; Edward Hess; Candice Mueller; Brigid Connelly; Mary E Plomondon; Stephen W Waldo; Catherine Battaglia Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Patricia A Carney; W Perry Dickinson; Jay Fetter; Eric J Warm; Brenda Zierler; Jill Patton; Greg Kirschner; Steven D Crane; Sarah Shrader; M Patrice Eiff Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa; David A Ganz; Jenny M Barnard; Lauren Penney; Erin P Finley; Alison B Hamilton; Neetu Chawla Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2021-06-21
Authors: Anna Burhouse; Madeleine Rowland; Heather Marie Niman; Daisy Abraham; Elizabeth Collins; Helen Matthews; Joanna Denney; Howard Ryland Journal: BMJ Qual Improv Rep Date: 2015-11-11
Authors: Roy W Batterham; Rachelle Buchbinder; Alison Beauchamp; Sarity Dodson; Gerald R Elsworth; Richard H Osborne Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 3.295