The Business Case for a “Coach Approach” in Healthcare

Shifting from the “Fixer Trap” to Partnering for Retention and Clinical ROI

Executive Summary

Healthcare organizations are facing an unprecedented retention crisis. Occupational therapists report the highest intent to leave of any allied health profession—with some studies showing rates exceeding 70% (Yeoh et al., 2024). This white paper demonstrates that a Coach Approach targets the three primary drivers of attrition: Profession-centric (lack of growth), Systemic-centric (workload), and Individual-centric (burnout).

The Cost of Attrition: Replacing a single healthcare professional costs $45,000–$150,000; physician or clinical leadership departures can reach $500,000–$1,000,000. A mid-sized facility risks $1.8M–$3M annually in turnover-related costs.

The Solution: By shifting from a “Fixer” mindset to a “Partnering” model, organizations can reduce the emotional burden clinicians carry while improving patient outcomes.

Clinical ROI: Evidence-based coaching leads to significantly higher health-related quality of life for patients with chronic conditions and measurable improvements in clinician self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

Section 1: The Allied Health Exodus

The Numbers Behind the Crisis

The healthcare workforce is bleeding talent—not because clinicians stop caring, but because they care too much without the right tools to sustain it.

A 2024 peer-reviewed analysis of existing research examined attrition across allied health professions and revealed a startling reality: while actual attrition rates range from 0.5% to 41%, the intent to leave is far higher—with occupational therapists reporting rates exceeding 70% in some studies (Yeoh et al., 2024). This gap between current attrition and intent signals a workforce on the edge—one that hasn’t left yet, but is actively considering it.

For healthcare executives, this represents a volatile, high-risk workforce requiring immediate strategic intervention.

The Three Drivers of Attrition

The same research identified three recurring categories driving clinicians to leave:

1. Profession-Centric Drivers Clinicians experience stagnation in career progression and lack of professional support. Allied health professionals are the third-largest healthcare workforce globally, yet only 14% hold executive board positions in healthcare organizations (Eddison et al., 2023). This “clinical ceiling” leaves talented practitioners with nowhere to grow—except out.

2. Systemic-Centric Drivers Staffing challenges, compensation gaps, and excessive clinical workload create unsustainable conditions. When organizations ask clinicians to do more with less, the math eventually stops working.

3. Individual-Centric Drivers Burnout, lack of recognition, and the personal need for change accumulate over time. Clinicians often describe carrying emotional weight that wasn’t theirs to carry—what we call the “Backpack Problem.”

The Cost of Inaction

The financial impact of this crisis extends far beyond recruitment costs:

When a single clinician leaves, organizations lose more than a filled position—they lose relationships with patients, mentorship capacity for students, and the tacit knowledge that makes care delivery efficient.

The “Intent to Leave” Premium: The Surcharge Organizations Don’t See Coming. These figures represent actual turnover. But with intent-to-leave rates exceeding 70% among OTs and similarly high percentages across allied health professions, this cost is not a static line item—it is an active financial threat to organizational stability. The question for leadership is not if turnover will occur, but how much of that intent will convert to actual departures in the next 12–24 months.

The Leadership Gap

Here’s what most leadership development programs miss: clinicians are trained to understand healthcare systems, but not how to lead conversations with the people in front of them.

Graduate curricula in occupational therapy, physical therapy, and nursing emphasize leadership as administration—policy, strategic planning, governance structures. But they rarely teach clinicians how to have the conversation that turns around a burned-out team member or guides a patient toward their own insight (Smallfield et al., 2019; Rutschke & Fick, 2023).

The result? Clinicians promoted into leadership roles often default to what they know: fixing problems for others rather than facilitating solutions with them.

This gap is precisely where a Coach Approach creates impact.

Section 2: The “Backpack” Problem—Understanding Emotional Overload

Why Caring Becomes Carrying

When clinicians enter healthcare, they receive more than a degree—they receive an invisible backpack. Over time, that backpack fills with weight that was never theirs to carry.

The same skills that make clinicians excellent at their jobs can become liabilities when misapplied:

• Empathy becomes emotional overload when clinicians absorb every patient’s struggle as their own.
• Problem-solving becomes the “Fixer Trap” when clinicians solve problems patients never asked them to solve.
• Adaptability becomes self-abandonment when clinicians meet everyone else’s needs but their own.

This is the mechanism behind the Individual-centric driver of attrition. Burnout doesn’t happen because clinicians stop caring—it happens because they care without boundaries.

The Fixer Trap

Healthcare training teaches clinicians to assess, diagnose, and intervene. This clinical reasoning model works well for medical problems with clear solutions. But when applied to behavior change, goal achievement, and patient motivation, it backfires.

Consider a typical clinical interaction:

The clinician sets the goal. The clinician designs the intervention. The clinician problem-solves obstacles the patient hasn’t even named yet. And when the patient doesn’t follow through, the clinician writes “goal not achieved” and wonders what they did wrong.

In that moment, the clinician just added something to their backpack.

When clinicians operate from a “Fixer” mindset, they unconsciously take ownership of outcomes that belong to the patient:

• The patient’s goals become the clinician’s responsibility
• The patient’s lack of follow-through becomes the clinician’s failure
• The patient’s family dynamics become the clinician’s problem to solve
• The patient’s insurance barriers become the clinician’s obstacle to overcome

There is only so much space in that backpack.

The Research Behind the Metaphor

This pattern is well-documented in the literature. A systematic review of health coaching interventions found that clinician-led approaches—where the provider directs goals and solutions—produce lower patient engagement and adherence than client-led approaches (Boehmer et al., 2023). When patients don’t own their goals, they don’t pursue them. And when clinicians carry goals that aren’t theirs, they burn out.

The connection between this dynamic and clinician wellbeing is equally clear. Clinician-educators who adopt a coaching stance—asking rather than telling, facilitating rather than fixing—report increased job satisfaction and reduced emotional exhaustion (Elster et al., 2022).

The pattern holds across conditions: diabetes management, chronic pain, cardiac rehabilitation, pediatric interventions. When clinicians shift from directing to partnering, patients improve and clinicians sustain.

What Offloading Looks Like

The alternative to the Fixer Trap is not caring less—it’s caring differently.

Offloading the backpack means:

• Asking “What’s the one thing you want to focus on today?” instead of deciding for the patient
• Asking “What have you already tried?” before offering solutions
• Asking “What feels like the right next step for you?” instead of prescribing the plan

These are not passive questions. They are strategic redirections that return ownership to the person who must ultimately do the work: the patient.

When a clinician shifts from fixing to partnering, two things happen simultaneously:

1. The patient becomes more engaged. Research consistently shows that self-selected goals produce higher commitment and follow-through than assigned goals (Levack et al., 2015).
2. The clinician becomes more sustainable. The emotional weight of “goal not achieved” no longer lands on the clinician’s shoulders—because the goal was never theirs to carry.

This is the core mechanism of a Coach Approach: it improves patient outcomes while protecting clinician wellbeing. Not one or the other. Both.

Section 3: The Coach Approach in Healthcare

What It Is (And What It Isn’t)

A Coach Approach is not about becoming a certified coach. It’s not about adding hours to your day or learning an entirely new discipline. It’s about changing how you spend the hours you already have.

At its core, a Coach Approach is a shift in how existing conversations are conducted—with patients, colleagues, and teams—so that responsibility for insight, goals, and action remains with the person who must ultimately carry them out.

What a Coach Approach is:

• A way of asking questions that triggers the other person’s own insight
• A method for facilitating goal-setting that increases ownership and follow-through
• A conversational stance rooted in curiosity rather than immediate problem-solving
• A strategic framework for navigating effective conversations that address the perceptual barriers (fear, low self-efficacy, or limiting beliefs) that often stall patient progress.

What a Coach Approach is not:

• Therapy or counseling
• Abandoning clinical expertise
• Letting patients or staff “figure it out alone”
• Adding time to already-packed schedules

The distinction matters. Many clinicians are not initially familiar with what a Coach Approach looks like in healthcare practice. When they first encounter it, it is often misinterpreted as withholding clinical expertise or stepping back from professional responsibility. In practice, the opposite is true. A Coach Approach integrates clinical knowledge with facilitation skills—allowing expertise to be offered intentionally, while creating space for patients or team members to lead their own thinking and decision-making.

The Shift: From Biomechanical to Biopsychosocial

Traditional healthcare training largely operates from a Biomechanical (Biomedical) model. This model focuses on anatomical structures, physical diagnosis, and “fixing” pathology. While essential for acute care, research consistently shows this model falls short in managing behavior change, chronic disease, and patient engagement (Oostendorp et al., 2015; Darlow et al., 2012).

Healthcare delivery is often “biological-heavy” but “psychosocial-light.” A Coach Approach provides the delivery mechanism for the Biopsychosocial model. It recognizes that a patient may have the correct diagnosis (Biological), but without addressing their mindset (Psychological) or their environment (Social), the clinical intervention will fail.

​​The Shift: From Clinician-Led to Client-Led

A Coach Approach explicitly activates the biopsychosocial dimensions of care. It reverses the flow of the interaction:

This shift doesn’t reduce the clinician’s value—it redirects it. The clinician still brings expertise, but offers it in service of the client’s self-identified goals rather than in place of the client’s own thinking.

The Discoverer Mindset: The “Being” of Coaching

Professional coaching frameworks, such as the ICF Core Competencies (2025), distinguish between coaching skills (the “doing”) and the underlying mindset (the “being”) that makes those skills effective. In the Dive Into a Coach Approach® framework, we utilize the Discoverer Mindset—one of four key metaphors—to help clinicians embody this shift.

This stance contrasts sharply with the default clinical stance, which is diagnostic: What’s wrong? What’s the cause? What’s the fix?

The Discoverer Mindset asks different, biopsychosocial questions:

• What does this person already understand about their situation?
• What have they already tried?
• What matters most to them right now?
• What are they ready to commit to?

These questions aren’t “softer” or less rigorous than diagnostic questions. They are differently rigorous. They require the clinician to hold space for ambiguity, tolerate silence, and trust that the person in front of them has resources and insights that a purely biomechanical assessment cannot see.

By adopting the Discoverer Mindset, the clinician moves from being the sole “Fixer” of a biological problem to being a “Partner” in a psychosocial solution.

Section 4: Evidence—Why This Works

The evidence base for using a Coach Approach in healthcare is substantial and growing. It demonstrates a “Double ROI”: superior clinical outcomes for patients and improved psychological sustainability for the workforce.

For Patients: Activating the Biopsychosocial Model

A Cochrane systematic review found that goal-setting combined with strategies to enhance goal pursuit led to significantly higher health-related quality of life for adults in rehabilitation settings (Levack et al., 2015). The effect was strongest when patients participated actively in setting their own goals.

A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of health and wellness coaching found significant improvements in patient-important outcomes across chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity (Boehmer et al., 2023). Using a Coach Approach with patients improved self-efficacy, treatment adherence, and quality of life.

Condition-specific evidence is equally strong:

• Chronic pain: Patient-led goal setting combined with education reduces pain disability and intensity (Gardner et al., 2019)
• Diabetes: Health coaching improves HbA1c, self-management, and quality of life (Racey et al., 2022)
• Pediatrics/ADHD: Parent coaching improves executive function in children and increases parent self-efficacy (Ogourtsova et al., 2019; Pijarnvanit & Sriphetcharawut, 2024)
• Stroke/Brain Injury: Coaching-based transition interventions support successful return-to-work and community reintegration (Lin et al., 2020; Donker-Cools et al., 2017)

For Clinicians: The Antidote to Burnout

The benefits extend beyond patient outcomes. Clinician-educators who adopt a Coach Approach report increased job satisfaction and reduced burnout (Elster et al., 2022). A study of healthcare managers found that coaching-based leadership development improved self-efficacy and leadership confidence (Hu et al., 2024).

This dual benefit—better outcomes for patients and better sustainability for clinicians—is what makes a Coach Approach uniquely positioned to address the retention crisis.

From Bedside to Boardroom: Coaching Scales

One of the most powerful aspects of a Coach Approach is that it scales. The same skills that improve patient interactions also transform leadership conversations.

Consider a clinical lead who inherits a burned-out team member. The Fixer response: listen to the problem, offer a solution, move on. The team member leaves with the manager’s answer—but no ownership of what happens next.

The Coach Approach response:

• “What have you thought about doing so far?”
• “What’s worked for you in similar situations?”
• “From your perspective, what feels like the right next step?”

Same time investment. Same meeting. But the team member leaves owning the solution—because they generated it.

This is what it means to be a changemaker as a leader. Not solving problems for your team, but facilitating their capacity to solve problems themselves.

When one manager shifts their approach, the ripple effect is significant:

• Team members develop problem-solving confidence
• The manager’s emotional load decreases
• Solutions fit better because they come from the people doing the work
• The organization builds internal leadership capacity

A Coach Approach isn’t just a clinical skill. It’s a leadership multiplier.

Measuring Coaching Culture

Research has begun to operationalize what distinguishes organizations that embed coaching into their culture from those that simply offer coaching as a service. Jenkins (2017) developed the Coaching Culture Inventory, a pilot measure identifying five dimensions that characterize a coaching culture: Leadership (leaders modeling coaching behaviors), Coaching Development (training in coaching skills), Context and Strategy (coaching aligned with organizational goals), Coaching Resources (time and support for coaching), and Creation of Coaching Opportunities (structures enabling coaching conversations).

The critical finding: coaching cultures are stronger when employees not only know that coaching is valued but see it practiced daily across all levels of the organization. This aligns with the broader organizational culture literature showing that culture manifests not in what leaders say, but in what they consistently do (Schein, 2009).

Organizational ROI: The Retention Calculation

The financial case for a Coach Approach is straightforward. As outlined in Section 1, replacing a single allied health professional costs $45,000–$150,000. If a Coach Approach reduces intent-to-leave by even a modest fraction, the organizational return is substantial.

Consider: retaining just 2–3 allied health professionals per year offsets the cost of training an entire cohort in coaching skills. At Cleveland Clinic, peer-based coaching was associated with improved physician retention, yielding a potential cost saving of $133 million (Jansen et al., 2024). Salud Integral en la Montaña, a Puerto Rico-based nonprofit healthcare organization, credited coaching for increasing patient productivity from 32,000 to 55,000 patients annually within two years—while achieving patient satisfaction rates approaching 100%.

The math works because a Coach Approach addresses the three drivers of attrition simultaneously: it provides professional growth (profession-centric), reduces emotional burden (individual-centric), and creates a culture where people want to stay (systemic-centric).

ROI Summary: Who Benefits and How

A Coach Approach is not a soft skill—it is a strategic investment with measurable returns across every level of the organization.

Section 5: Implementation—The Coaching Spectrum Framework™

The most common objection executives raise is time: “Our clinicians are already stretched—they can’t add coaching to their day.” This is the “Time Myth.” A Coach Approach is not an additional task layered onto clinical duties—it is a higher-efficiency method for performing them. The question isn’t whether clinicians have time to coach; it’s whether they can afford the time lost to the Fixer Trap.

To address this, I developed the Coaching Spectrum Framework™. This framework provides clinicians with a clear roadmap for when and how to apply coaching intentionally within their professional scope of practice—ranging from brief, “in-the-moment” interactions to structured methodology.

The Four Pillars of the Spectrum

1. In-the-Moment Coaching (Informal & Responsive): This approach is seamlessly integrated into real-time clinical conversations. It relies on presence and curiosity to recognize opportunities for “micro-coaching moments” that shift a patient’s perspective or re-engage them when they shut down emotionally.
2. Laser-Focused Coaching (Targeted & Efficient): A brief, 10–15 minute structured conversation focused on a single topic. By explicitly gaining consent to use a coaching style, the clinician builds partnership while helping the patient identify their own next steps without taking on the patient’s cognitive load.
3. Blended Coaching (Integrated Clinical Practice): This acknowledges that healthcare professionals often use coaching methodology while simultaneously providing medical or rehabilitative interventions. It ensures the clinical plan aligns with the patient’s real priorities and readiness.
4. Extended Coaching (Formal & Structured): These are scheduled, multi-session engagements (traditionally 30–60 minutes). This structure allows for deeper exploration of habits and barriers that cannot be addressed in short appointments, leading to sustainable behavior change.

Developmental Integration: The DICA Journey

Organizations that successfully embed these four approaches move beyond “one-off” workshops toward a micro-credentialing pathway. Through the Dive Into a Coach Approach® (DICA) certification, healthcare professionals learn to navigate this spectrum ethically, ensuring they can walk the line between their “Expert” and “Coaching” roles.

• Level 1 – Core Fundamentals: Introduces foundational competencies and Laser-Focused Coaching for immediate clinical application.
• Level 2 – Results & Technical Mastery: Deepens skills through supervised peer coaching and mastery of Blended methods.
• Level 3 – Live Implementation: Supports the adaptation of these skills into real-world clinical contexts to achieve measurable outcomes.
• Level 4 – ICF Readiness: Provides advanced mentorship for those moving into formal, Extended Coaching roles while maintaining clear ethical boundaries.

Scalability: The “Train-the-Leader” Strategy

To ensure long-term ROI, implementation must start at the leadership level. When executives and department heads utilize a Coach Approach with their managers, they create a “Psychological Safety Bridge.” This top-down modeling allows clinicians to feel safe shifting away from the “Fixer Trap,” knowing that their leadership values patient autonomy and clinician sustainability over traditional, directive compliance.

Integration with Quality Improvement (QI)

A Coach Approach is most effective when mapped to existing organizational goals, serving as a delivery mechanism for key metrics:

• HCAHPS/Patient Satisfaction: Improving “Communication with Providers” scores by moving from directive to collaborative care.
• Length of Stay (LOS): Using coaching to address the psychosocial barriers—such as fear or low self-efficacy—that often delay discharge.
• Productivity: Reducing the “emotional drag” of burnout, allowing for more focused, efficient clinical hours and reducing the time wasted on “non-adherence.”

Section 6: The Spectrum in Action—Three Clinical Scenarios

To understand the business value of the Coach Approach, it is necessary to see how the Coaching Spectrum Framework™ translates into real-world clinical efficiency. The following examples illustrate how moving away from the “Fixer Trap” improves both patient engagement and clinician sustainability.

Case Study 1: “In-the-Moment” Coaching in Acute Rehabilitation

The Scenario: A physiotherapist is working with a patient recovering from a concussion. The patient expresses deep frustration with their slow progress and begins to disengage from the session.

The Traditional “Fixer” Response: The therapist attempts to “fix” the frustration by explaining the medical timeline of recovery or listing the exercises completed, inadvertently taking on the emotional burden of the patient’s plateau.

The Coach Approach (In-the-Moment): * The therapist recognizes the emotional shutdown and shifts to a Discoverer Mindset.

• Instead of offering solutions, the therapist says: “I notice that you appear frustrated—I can appreciate that”.
• They follow with a powerful curiosity-based question: “What has been working well in your recovery so far?”.
• Outcome: This brief reflection allows the patient to feel heard and shifts them from a state of frustration to one of insight, re-engaging them in the session without adding time to the appointment.

Case Study 2: “Laser-Focused” Coaching in Primary Care

The Scenario: A nurse practitioner is supporting a patient with chronic pain. The patient feels overwhelmed by a long list of lifestyle recommendations.

The Traditional “Fixer” Response: The practitioner prescribes a specific plan, which the patient likely won’t follow because they haven’t “owned” the solution, leading to a cycle of non-adherence and practitioner burnout.

The Coach Approach (Laser-Focused): * The practitioner explicitly explains they are using a coaching style and gains the patient’s consent.

• They spend 10 minutes focused on a single target, asking: “If we focus on just one small change this week, what would be most helpful for you?”.
• Outcome: The patient identifies a manageable next step they are actually ready to commit to. At the follow-up visit, they report having completed it—breaking a six-month cycle of non-adherence. The practitioner’s cognitive load decreases because the patient now owns the plan.

Case Study 3: “Blended” Coaching in Neuro-Rehabilitation

The Scenario: An occupational therapist (OT) is working with a client with ADHD. The OT feels the tension between needing to use their clinical expertise and wanting the client to take ownership of their goals.

The Traditional “Fixer” Response: The OT sets the agenda for the day, which may not align with the client’s current mental state, leading to a lack of carryover at home.

The Coach Approach (Blended): * The OT begins the session by stating: “Let’s begin with a quick coaching conversation to get clear on what matters most for today”.

• Once the client identifies their top priority, the OT seamlessly transitions into applying clinical executive function strategies that align with that specific goal.
• Outcome: The clinical intervention is highly targeted and relevant, ensuring that the clinician’s expertise is used to support the client’s own priorities rather than imposing a top-down plan.

The ROI of Narrative Proof

In each of these cases, the time spent was identical to a traditional session. However, the ROI is found in the results:

• For the Organization: Higher patient follow-through and improved clinical outcomes.
• For the Clinician: A lighter “backpack” as they return accountability to the patient, directly combating the individual-centric drivers of burnout.

Section 7: Overcoming Barriers to Adoption—Addressing Executive Concerns

Transitioning an organization toward a Coach Approach requires addressing the natural hesitations of leadership. While the data supports the ROI of coaching, three primary “perceived barriers” often emerge during the implementation phase. Addressing these proactively is essential for successful organizational buy-in.

1. The “Time Constraint” Barrier

The most common objection is that clinicians are already over-burdened and cannot add “coaching sessions” to their schedule.

• The Reality: A Coach Approach is a conversational efficiency tool, not an additional appointment.
• The Shift: “In-the-Moment” coaching techniques are designed to be fast, seamless, and integrated into existing care interactions.
• The ROI: By using “Laser-Focused” coaching to identify a single, high-impact goal in 10 minutes, clinicians avoid the “Fixer Trap,” which often leads to wasted time solving problems the patient isn’t ready to address.

2. The “Scope of Practice” Barrier

There is often a concern that coaching might replace clinical expertise or drift into therapy.

• The Reality: The Coaching Spectrum Framework™ is specifically designed to help clinicians understand how to apply coaching within their professional scope.
• The Shift: Coaching does not replace expertise; it enhances the delivery of that expertise.
• The ROI: In the “Blended Coaching” model, clinical intervention only begins after a coaching conversation has clarified the patient’s goals, ensuring medical and rehabilitative work is highly targeted and ethical.

3. The “Culture of Resistance” Barrier

Organizations may fear that long-tenured staff will resist “another new initiative.”

• The Reality: Most healthcare professionals are already using some coaching techniques intuitively; the framework simply makes these efforts intentional and effective.
• The Shift: By utilizing the Dive Into a Coach Approach® (DICA) micro-credentialing levels, organizations provide a structured, evidence-based pathway that respects professional identity while adding a modern skill set.
• The ROI: As clinicians experience the reduction in their own “emotional load” through the Discoverer Mindset, resistance typically shifts to advocacy.

Quick-Start Checklist for Leadership

• Identify 2–3 clinical leaders to pilot DICA Level 1 training
• Map coaching competencies to one existing QI metric (e.g., HCAHPS communication scores)
• Schedule a 90-day review to assess clinician feedback and patient outcomes
• Expand based on early wins

Conclusion: From Vulnerability to Stability

The healthcare exodus is not an inevitability; it is a signal that our current “Fixer” model of care is unsustainable for the human beings delivering it. By shifting from a directive stance to a partnering stance, organizations address the root causes of attrition—burnout, lack of growth, and unsustainable workloads.

Investing in a Coach Approach through the Coaching Spectrum Framework™ and DICA Certification provides a rare “Double ROI”: it activates the patient’s own resources for better clinical outcomes while simultaneously offloading the emotional weight that drives talented clinicians out of the profession.

For the modern healthcare executive, the choice is clear. We can continue to pay the high cost of attrition, or we can invest in a culture of partnership that protects our most valuable asset—our people.

To explore how the Dive Into a Coach Approach® methodology can support your organization’s retention and clinical outcomes, contact Function First Coaching at info@functionfirstcoaching.com.

About the Author

Hélène Thériault, BScOT, MAdEd, MCC

Hélène Thériault is the founder of Function First Coaching Inc. and creator of the Dive Into a Coach Approach® (DICA) methodology—an ICF-accredited training system that equips healthcare professionals with coaching competencies designed specifically for clinical practice.

With a background as an occupational therapist and a Master’s degree in Adult Education, Hélène brings over two decades of experience bridging clinical expertise with evidence-based coaching. She holds the Master Certified Coach (MCC) credential from the International Coaching Federation—the highest certification in the profession—and has trained healthcare professionals across North America, partnering with organizations including Medbridge and Providence Health.

Hélène’s work is grounded in a simple premise: the skills that make clinicians effective can also lead to burnout when misapplied. The DICA methodology provides a structured pathway for shifting from a “Fixer” mindset to a “Partner” stance—improving patient outcomes while protecting clinician wellbeing.

Her mission is to train over 150,000 clinicians worldwide by 2030, transforming healthcare conversations one interaction at a time.

Contact
https://www.functionfirstcoaching.com/
Email: info@functionfirstcoaching.com

Appendix: Executive Toolkit

Projected ROI of a “Coach Approach” Implementation

This table illustrates the potential cost savings for a mid-sized facility (approx. 200 staff) by reducing the “Intent to Leave” through a cultural shift toward coaching.

Final Executive Checklist: 90-Day Implementation Strategy

Use this checklist to evaluate your organization’s readiness to shift from a “Fixer” culture to a “Partnering” culture.

• [ ] Phase 1: Financial Audit. Calculate the specific cost of allied health and leadership turnover in your facility over the last 24 months.
• [ ] Phase 2: Cultural Assessment. Identify “Fixer Trap” hotspots—departments with high burnout and low patient satisfaction scores.
• [ ] Phase 3: Leadership Buy-In. Enroll senior clinical leads in DICA Level 1 to establish the “Psychological Safety Bridge” and model coaching behaviors top-down.
• [ ] Phase 4: Pilot Integration. Identify a “High-Impact” unit to pilot the Coaching Spectrum Framework™, focusing specifically on “In-the-Moment” and “Laser-Focused” techniques.
• [ ] Phase 5: Metric Alignment. Map coaching outcomes to existing Quality Improvement (QI) goals, such as HCAHPS scores and Length of Stay (LOS) metrics.
• [ ] Phase 6: Scaling. Expand the Dive Into a Coach Approach® (DICA) micro-credentialing pathway to the broader clinical staff.

APA Reference: Thériault, H. (2026). The business case for a “coach approach” in healthcare: Shifting from the “fixer trap” to partnering for retention and clinical ROI [White paper]. Function First Coaching. https://www.functionfirstcoaching.com/the-business-case-for-a-coach-approach-in-healthcare/

References

Section 1

Eddison, N., Healy, A., Darke, N., & Williams, J. (2023). Exploration of the representation of the allied health professions in senior leadership positions in the UK National Health Service. BMJ Leader, 7, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2023-000737

Rutschke, M. & Fick, J. (2023). Exploring leadership competencies and mentoring needs of physical and occupational therapy leaders in the United States. Journal of Health and Allied Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1764356

Smallfield, S., Flanigan, N., & Sherman, S. (2019). Leadership content in occupational therapy curricula. [Cited in: Leadership Roles in the Field of Occupational Therapy, University of St. Augustine]

Yeoh, S. A., Kumar, S., Phillips, A., & Li, L. S. K. (2024). Unveiling the exodus: A scoping review of attrition in allied health. PLOS One, 19(3), e0308302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308302

Section 2

Boehmer, K. R., Álvarez-Villalobos, N. A., Barakat, S., et al. (2023). The impact of health and wellness coaching on patient-important outcomes in chronic illness care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 117, 107975.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2023.107975

Elster, M., O’Sullivan, P. S., Muller-Juge, V., Sheu, L., Kaiser, S. V., & Hauer, K. E. (2022). Does being a coach benefit clinician-educators? A mixed methods study of faculty self-efficacy, job satisfaction and burnout. Perspectives on Medical Education, 11(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00676-7

Levack, W. M. M., Weatherall, M., Hay-Smith, E. J. C., Dean, S. G., McPherson, K., & Siegert, R. J. (2015). Goal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit for adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009727.pub2

Section 3

Darlow, B., Fullen, B., Dean, S., Hurley, D., Baxter, G., & Dowell, A. (2012). The association between health care professional attitudes and beliefs and the attitudes and beliefs, clinical management, and outcomes of patients with low back pain: A systematic review. European Journal of Pain, 16(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.06.006

Halvari, A. E., Ivarsson, A., Halvari, H., Dahl, K. E., Olafsen, A. H., Solstad, B. E., Deci, E. L., & Williams, G. (2022). Dental hygienists’ biopsychosocial beliefs and giving autonomy support in treatment of patients: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 20(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12584

International Coaching Federation. (2025). ICF core competencies. https://coachingfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/icf-cs-core-competencies-2025.pdf

Oostendorp, R. A., Elvers, H., Mikołajewska, E., Laekeman, M., van Trijffel, E., Samwel, H., Duquet, W., & Villafañe, J. H. (2015). Manual Physical Therapists’ Use of Biopsychosocial History Taking in the Management of Patients with Back or Neck Pain in Clinical Practice. The Scientific World Journal, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/170463

Section 4

Boehmer, K. R., Álvarez-Villalobos, N. A., Barakat, S., et al. (2023). The impact of health and wellness coaching on patient-important outcomes in chronic illness care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 117, 107975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2023.107975

Donker-Cools, B. H., Wind, H., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2017). Prognostic factors of return to work after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review. Brain Injury, 31(2), 165-177.

Elster, M., O’Sullivan, P. S., Muller-Juge, V., Sheu, L., Kaiser, S. V., & Hauer, K. E. (2022). Does being a coach benefit clinician-educators? A mixed methods study of faculty self-efficacy, job satisfaction and burnout. Perspectives on Medical Education, 11(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00676-7

Gardner, T., Refshauge, K., Smith, L., McAuley, J., Hübscher, M., & Goodall, S. (2019). Physiotherapists’ beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Journal of Physiotherapy, 63(3), 132-143.

Hu, Y., Wang, Q., & Liu, Y. (2024). The effects of coaching-based leadership development on healthcare managers: A systematic review. Healthcare Management Review. [Advance online publication]

Jansen, E. J., Czabanowska, K., Pagter, A. P., & Koeijer, R. J. (2024). Implementing coaching programmes for healthcare professionals—A review of the barriers and facilitators. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 39(3), 860-878. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3761

Jenkins, J. (2017). Developing a coaching culture pilot measure [Master’s thesis, Adler University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Levack, W. M. M., Weatherall, M., Hay-Smith, E. J. C., Dean, S. G., McPherson, K., & Siegert, R. J. (2015). Goal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit for adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009727.pub2

Lin, J., Chiang, H., & Sullivan, J. E. (2020). Coaching approaches in stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 27(3), 211-219.

Ogourtsova, T., O’Donnell, M., & Bherer, L. (2019). Cognitive coaching for children with ADHD: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(21), 2507-2519.

Pijarnvanit, P., & Sriphetcharawut, S. (2024). Parent coaching intervention for children with developmental delays: A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. [Advance online publication]

Racey, M., Markle-Reid, M., Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., et al. (2022). Health coaching for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 183, 109168.

Schein, E. H. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.