Cited by 21Innovations in Medical EducationCoaching Methods and ImpactMentoring and Academic Development

Goal co‐construction and dialogue in an internal medicine longitudinal coaching programme

Open access
Farrell, Laura, Cuncic, Cary, Hartford, Wendy, Hatala, Rose, Ajjawi, Rola·2023·Medical Education

Abstract

Background: Longitudinal coaching in residency programmes is becoming commonplace and requires iterative and collaborative discussions between coach and resident, with the shared development of goals. However, little is known about how goal development unfolds within coaching conversations over time and the effects these conversations have. We therefore built on current coaching theory by analysing goal development dialogues within resident and faculty coaching relationships. Methods: This was a qualitative study using interpretive description methodology. Eight internal medicine coach–resident dyads consented to audiotaping coaching meetings over a 1‐year period. Transcripts from meetings and individual exit interviews were analysed thematically using goal co‐construction as a sensitising concept. Results: Two themes were developed: (i) The content of goals discussed in coaching meetings focused on how to be a resident, with little discussion around challenges in direct patient care, and (ii) co‐construction mainly occurred in how to meet goals, rather than in prioritising goals or co‐constructing new goals. Conclusions: In analysing goal development in the coach–resident relationships, conversations focused mainly around how to manage as a resident rather than how to improve direct patient care. This may be because academic coaching provides space separate from clinical work to focus on the stage‐specific professional identity development of a resident. Going forward, focus should be on how to optimise longitudinal coaching conversations to ensure co‐regulation and reflection on both clinical competencies and professional identity formation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.14942

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Authors
Farrell, L., Cuncic, C., Hartford, W., Hatala, R., & Ajjawi, R.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Farrell, Laura
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-10-11
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
265-271
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W4298326476
Cited by
21
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia (GR013393, NVZN)
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
coaching conversations, internal medicine residency, professional identity formation, co-regulation, reflection, clinical competence, faculty coaching
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Faculty, Goals, Humans, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency

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