Investigating the Impact of Professional Development Coaching for Faculty

NCT05036993 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 2019P003587
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 155
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Coaching is used in business and many other career paths to help the individual define and create their own goals and strategies for achieving those goals. In 2017 the investigators began to investigate the impact of coaching compared to non-coached peers in a randomized trial among non-internal medicine residency programs and internal medicine subspecialty fellowship to understand the impact of this program and its generalizability. Data from all these studies has suggested that coaching is effective in allowing trainees to understand their development over time, find meaning and purpose in their work, and identify their strengths and how to use these to overcome challenges and stressors. Additionally, there is a benefit to the coaches themselves, who can connect with other faculty coaches in a rewarding way, that provides faculty development in leadership development and positive psychology, and space to interact with a group of like-minded physicians. From the work the investigators have done with housestaff through the MGH Professional Development Coaching Program we have seen a tremendous interest from faculty members for access to similar services. Prior studies show improvement in faculty burnout and engagement at work through small-group sessions focused on reducing distress and promoting well-being. The investigators have also seen that while the training of novice coaches in positive psychology is sufficient to begin crucial conversations about drivers of well-being, the need for more in-depth coaching with certified coaches exists. The goal of this project is to expand coaching to MGH faculty members and provide more in-depth training for coaches through the International Federation of Coaching, through the Wellcoaches Coach Training Program. This is a unique approach to professional development within the field of medicine that has not yet been employed or studied. There was a recent publication of professional coaches hired outside of the field for faculty development, but there has been no training of medical colleagues with professional coaching skills. This has the potential to provide new data for the field and become a sustainable intervention for MGH in addressing ongoing professional development for our faculty and the burnout epidemic. Finally, this can serve as model for implementation in other institutions.

Conditions

Burnout; Burnout, Professional

Keywords

physician burnout; physician well-being; coaching; faculty development; engagement

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

• Burnout

  Professional Fulfillment Index;Items are scored 0 to 4. Each dimension is treated as a continuous variable. Scale scores are calculated by averaging the item scores of all the items within the corresponding scale. Scale scores can then be multiplied by 25 to create a scale range from 0 to 100. Higher score on the professional fulfillment scale is more favorable. In contrast, higher scores on the work exhaustion or interpersonal disengagement scales are less favorable. Dichotomous burnout categories are determined from the average item score (range 0 to 4) of all 10 burnout items (work exhaustion and interpersonal disengagement), using a cut-point of 1.33. Dichotomous professional flfillment is recommended at an average item score cut-point of \>3.0.

  3 months

• Professional Fulfillment

  Professional Fulfillment Index; Items are scored 0 to 4. Each dimension is treated as a continuous variable. Scale scores are calculated by averaging the item scores of all the items within the corresponding scale. Scale scores can then be multiplied by 25 to create a scale range from 0 to 100. Higher score on the professional fulfillment scale is more favorable. In contrast, higher scores on the work exhaustion or interpersonal disengagement scales are less favorable. Dichotomous burnout categories are determined from the average item score (range 0 to 4) of all 10 burnout items (work exhaustion and interpersonal disengagement), using a cut-point of 1.33. Dichotomous professional flfillment is recommended at an average item score cut-point of \>3.0.

  3 months

• Engagement

  Ultrecht Engagement Scale; The UWES utilizes three scales to determine the level of work engagement: Vigor, dedication, and absorption. It is a test of how to measure work engagement both on an individual and on group level:Score ranges from 0 to 6 for each item; scores are summed. Higher is better.

  3 months

• Work Relationships

  Negative Impact of Work on Relationships; 4 questions with Likert scale 0 to 4, responses summed, higher is worse

  3 months

Secondary Outcomes (2)

• Quality of Life Rating

  3 months

• Likelihood to leave or reduce

  3 months

Study Arms (2)

Intervention

EXPERIMENTAL

Coaching

Behavioral: Coaching

Control

EXPERIMENTAL

Control, Coaching later

Behavioral: Coaching

Interventions

Coaching BEHAVIORAL

Faculty will be paired with a certified coach who is also a faculty member and receive 6 sessions of coaching over 3 months

Control; Intervention

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• current MGPO Faculty member

You may not qualify if:

• n/a

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Massachusetts General Hospital: lead

Study Sites (1)

Massachusetts General Hospital

Boston, Massachusetts, 02114, United States

Location

Related Publications (1)

• Kiser SB, Sterns JD, Lai PY, Horick NK, Palamara K. Physician Coaching by Professionally Trained Peers for Burnout and Well-Being: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Apr 1;7(4):e245645. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5645.

  PMID: 38607628 DERIVED

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Burnout, Psychological; Burnout, Professional

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Stress, Psychological; Behavioral Symptoms; Behavior; Occupational Stress; Occupational Diseases

Study Officials

• Kerri Palamara, MD

  Massachusetts General Hospital

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: SUPPORTIVE CARE
• Intervention Model: CROSSOVER
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Director, Center for Physician Well-being

Model Details: Randomized controlled trial with crossover to intervention

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 30, 2021
• First Posted: September 8, 2021
• Study Start: June 5, 2021
• Primary Completion: April 1, 2022
• Study Completion: August 1, 2022
• Last Updated: March 17, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-03

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (1)