Why Does Studying the Impact of Physician Coaching Matter?

Studying the impact of physician coaching matters because it tells department leaders what works, for whom, and whether it is worth the investment. Coaching is spreading through academic medicine quickly, and the evidence needs to keep pace, especially in specialties where published data are still thin.

Key takeaways

• In a 2019 randomized trial of 88 physicians in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics, six professional coaching sessions reduced overall burnout by 22 percentage points compared with controls.
• That trial found no significant change in depersonalization, job satisfaction, or engagement, so coaching works best alongside organizational change.
• A 2026 pilot study found similar benefits in academic otolaryngology, with improved self-compassion, work exhaustion, and impostor feelings after coaching.
• At one academic medical center, replacing a surgical subspecialist cost $587,125 in 2004 dollars.
• Departments should measure burnout, retention, promotion, and productivity before and after any coaching program.

What does the strongest evidence on physician coaching show?

Professional coaching reduced physician burnout by 22 percentage points compared with controls in a randomized trial at Mayo Clinic. Eighty-eight physicians in medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics were randomized to six sessions with a professional coach or to a control group (Dyrbye et al., JAMA Internal Medicine, 2019).

After five months, overall burnout fell by 17.1% in the coaching group and rose by 4.9% in the control group. That is a 22-point difference. High emotional exhaustion showed a 29.3-point difference between groups. Quality of life and resilience also improved.

The same trial found no significant difference in depersonalization, job satisfaction, engagement, or meaning in work. That honesty matters. Coaching helps, and it has limits. It works alongside organizational change. It doesn't replace it.

What has our group published on coaching, feedback, and mentorship?

I've co-authored four peer-reviewed papers on coaching, feedback, and mentorship, published between 2017 and 2026. Most focus on otolaryngology, and the lessons apply across specialties. I coach physicians in internal medicine, pediatrics, otolaryngology, and obstetrics and gynecology, and the same patterns show up in all of them.

1. Feedback in residency training (2017). Our systematic review in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery looked at 18 studies on teaching professionalism and communication skills to otolaryngology residents. The ACGME recommends specific features of high-quality feedback. Most studies included few of them, and none reported the ACGME-recommended feedback models ADAPT or R2C2 (Faucett et al., 2017). The lesson: we often recommend practices we never measure.
2. Surgical coaching (2024). In a commentary in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, we described how surgical coaching has contributed to surgical training and practice. We also noted that the otolaryngology literature on it is lacking, and that surgeons have no coordinated system for operative feedback once training ends (Padia et al., 2024).
3. Mentorship and coaching (2025). Dr. Carrie Francis and I wrote a review in Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America defining the difference. Mentorship focuses on guidance, sponsorship, and connection. Coaching fosters self-reflection, goal setting, and behavior change through a collaborative partnership (Ishman and Francis, 2025).
4. A coaching pilot in academic otolaryngology (2026). This study, published in The Laryngoscope, tested a structured program with eight academic otolaryngologists. It included a three-hour workshop on values-based leadership, a 360-degree assessment, and three one-hour virtual coaching sessions over nine months (Norouzi et al., 2026).

Seven participants completed the surveys. After coaching, self-compassion, work exhaustion, and interpersonal disengagement improved significantly. Impostor syndrome scores dropped, and the share of participants screening positive fell from 71% to 43%. Professional fulfillment and flourishing scores improved, though those changes were not statistically significant.

Why does a small pilot study matter?

A pilot tells you whether a program is feasible and worth testing at scale. It does not prove the program works. Ours had eight participants and no control group, and the authors called for larger, controlled studies.

That is exactly the point. Every specialty works under different pressures, from the clinic to the operating room to the labor floor. Evidence from one setting is a starting point. Building data across specialties is how we learn what works, and for whom.

How does coaching connect to retention and cost?

Coaching matters to department budgets because faculty turnover is expensive and faculty development is linked to retention. To bring that evidence together for leaders, Academic Medicine Strategy Group published a white paper, The ROI of Physician Leadership Coaching & Faculty Development (September 2026). It reviews the research on burnout, turnover, and cost, and discloses up front that AMedSG provides coaching and has a commercial interest in the topic.

Two findings from that review stand out.

First, turnover is expensive. At one academic medical center, replacing a generalist cost $115,554, a medical subspecialist $286,503, and a surgical subspecialist $587,125, counting recruitment, hiring, and lost clinical income (Schloss et al., Academic Medicine, 2009). Those figures are from 2004 and leave out lost teaching and research.

Second, faculty development can change who stays. At Weill Cornell, faculty in the Leadership in Academic Medicine Program were 77% less likely to leave and 61% more likely to be promoted than matched controls (Tung et al., BMC Medical Education, 2021).

What should departments measure when they invest in coaching?

Departments should measure outcomes before a coaching program starts and again after it ends. Useful outcomes include:

• Burnout and professional fulfillment, using a validated tool such as the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index
• Faculty retention and departures over two years
• Promotion and leadership roles
• Time to full productivity for new leaders
• Resident and fellow satisfaction in teaching programs

Compare participants with similar faculty who did not take part. That turns a good feeling into evidence your institution can act on.

Why this matters for the future of academic medicine

Academic physicians train the next generation, lead discovery, and take the most complex cases. When they burn out and leave, patients, trainees, and science all lose.

Coaching is one way to keep them. Studying it is how we make sure the investment works, and how we earn the trust of the leaders deciding where to spend their limited dollars.

Frequently asked questions

Does coaching reduce physician burnout? In a randomized trial of 88 physicians, six sessions of professional coaching reduced overall burnout by 22 points compared with controls. Coaching did not significantly change depersonalization, job satisfaction, or engagement, so it works best alongside organizational change.

Does coaching work across specialties? The evidence is growing. The strongest randomized trial included physicians in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics. A 2026 pilot found similar benefits in academic otolaryngologists. Larger, controlled studies across more specialties are still needed.

What is the difference between mentorship and coaching? Mentorship focuses on guidance, sponsorship, and connection. Coaching focuses on self-reflection, goal setting, and behavior change through a collaborative partnership. Physicians benefit from both across every career stage.

Want the full evidence review? Download the white paper →

Building a retention strategy for your department? Learn about FERI →

About the author: Stacey Ishman, MD, MPH, FACS, FAAP, is a pediatric otolaryngologist and founder of Academic Medicine Strategy Group, which works with academic physicians and departments across specialties, including internal medicine, pediatrics, otolaryngology, and obstetrics and gynecology, on career strategy, coaching, and faculty retention. She has published 232 peer-reviewed papers and is the author of The Physician's Guide to Owning Your Time: Do Less. Accomplish More. (2026).