Anne P. J. de Pagter

Background The European Union faces severe and worsening personnel shortages in healthcare. Coaching has emerged as a human‐centred strategy to enhance sustainable employment and retention. While the number of efficacy studies on coaching continues to grow, knowledge about the barriers and facilitators to implementing coaching interventions among healthcare professionals (HCPs) remains scarce. Objectives This systematic review aimed to describe common barriers and facilitators to the implementation of coaching interventions for HCPs. Methods In April 2023, five databases were searched for eligible articles. Barriers and facilitators were systematically identified and mapped onto the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Directed content analysis yielded thematic areas and a reporting frequency. Results A total of thirty ( n = 30) studies were included in this review, representing twenty‐five ( n = 25) distinct coaching programmes. Implementation determinants were clustered under two CFIR domains: the Inner Setting (8 facilitators, 5 barriers) and Implementation Process (6 facilitators, 1 barrier). Barriers included (i) limited organisational capacity, (ii) lack of psychological safety, (iii) competing work demands, and (iv) insufficient leadership buy‐in, while facilitators were the (i) allocation of protected time for participants and coaches, (ii) promotion through opinion leaders, (iii) embeddedness in existing Continuous Professional Development programmes, and (iv) programme co‐creation. Conclusion The findings of this study provide practical insights to guide the future implementation of coaching interventions at an organisational level. In particular, the identified barriers and facilitators suggest, for optimal efficacy and sustainment, coaching interventions must be implemented within a safe, supportive organisational climate.

Introduction The assessment of using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow‐up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation. Methods The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient‐reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest–posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient‐centred care. Results From the patient‐interviews ( N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self‐reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre‐ and postimplementation analysis of PREMs ( N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient‐centeredness. Conclusion Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long‐term follow‐up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status. Patient Contribution This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.