Follow-Up Shadow Coaching Improves Primary Care Provider-Patient Interactions and Maintains Improvements When Conducted Regularly: A Spline Model Analysis

11Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: Shadow coaching improves provider-patient interactions, as measured by CG-CAHPS® overall provider rating (OPR) and provider communication (PC). However, these improvements erode over time. Aim: Examine whether a second coaching session (re-coaching) improves and sustains patient experience. Setting: Large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center Program: Trained providers observed patient care by colleagues and provided suggestions for improvement. Providers with OPRs<90 (0–100-point scale) were eligible. Evaluation: We used stratified randomization based on provider type and OPR to assign half of the 40 eligible providers to re-coaching. For OPR and PC, we fit mixed-effects regression models with random-effects for provider (level of treatment assignment) and fixed-effects for time (linear spline with knots and possible “jump” at initial coaching and re-coaching), previous OPR, patient characteristics, and sites. We observed a statistically significant medium jump among re-coached providers after re-coaching on OPR (3.7 points) and PC (3.5 points); differences of 1, 3, and ≥5-points for CAHPS measures are considered small, medium, and large. Improvements from re-coaching persisted for 12 months for OPR and 8 months for PC. Discussion: Re-coaching improved patient experience more than initial coaching, suggesting the reactivation of knowledge from initial coaching. However, re-coaching gains also eroded. Coaching should occur every 6 to 12 months to maintain behaviors and scores.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Quigley, D. D., Elliott, M. N., Slaughter, M. E., Talamantes, E., & Hays, R. D. (2023). Follow-Up Shadow Coaching Improves Primary Care Provider-Patient Interactions and Maintains Improvements When Conducted Regularly: A Spline Model Analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(1), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07881-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free