CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63Innovations in Medical EducationCoaching Methods and ImpactMentoring and Academic Development

A Novel Pediatric Residency Coaching Program: Outcomes After One Year

Rassbach, Caroline E., Blankenburg, Rebecca·2018·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000001825
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Problem: The ACGME requires all residency programs to assess residents on specialty-specific milestones. Optimal assessment of competence is through direct observation of performance in clinical settings, which is challenging to implement. Approach: The authors developed the Stanford Pediatric Residency Coaching Program to improve residents’ clinical skill development, reflective practice, feedback, and goal setting, and to improve learner assessment. All residents are assigned a dedicated faculty coach who coaches them throughout their training in various settings in an iterative process. Each coaching session consists of four parts: (1) direct observation, (2) facilitated reflection, (3) feedback from the coach, and (4) goal setting. Coaches document each session and participate in the Clinical Competency Committee. Initial program evaluation (2013 –2014) focused on the program’s effect on feedback, reflection, and goal setting. Pre- and postintervention surveys of residents and faculty assessed the quantity and quality of feedback provided to residents and faculty members’ confidence in giving feedback. Outcomes: Review of documented coaching sessions showed that all 82 residents had 3 or more direct observations (range: 3–12). Residents and faculty assessed coaches as providing higher-quality feedback and incorporating more reflection and goal setting than noncoaches. Coaches, compared with noncoaches, demonstrated increased confidence in giving feedback on clinical reasoning, communication skills, and goal setting. Noncoach faculty reported giving equal or more feedback after the coaching program than before. Next Steps: Further evaluation is under way to explore how coaching residents can affect patient-level outcomes, and to better understand the benefits and challenges of coaching residents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000001825

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rassbach, C. E., & Blankenburg, R.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Rassbach, Caroline E.
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-03
Volume
93
Issue
3
Pages
430-434
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0000000000001825
OpenAlex
W2735620563
Cited by
63
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
Keywords
pediatric residency, coaching programs, faculty coaching, clinical competence assessment, ACGME milestones, direct observation, reflective practice, feedback, goal setting, student assessment
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Child, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Faculty, Medical, Humans, Internship and Residency, Pediatrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Program Evaluation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review