Polly H Noël1,2, Jenny M Barnard3, Mei Leng3, Lauren S Penney4,5, Purnima S Bharath3,6, Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa3, Neetu Chawla3, Danielle E Rose3, Susan E Stockdale3,7, Alissa Simon3, Martin L Lee3,6, Erin P Finley4,5, Lisa V Rubenstein8,9, David A Ganz3,8,9. 1. Elizabeth Dole Center of Excellence for Veteran & Caregiver Research, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA. polly.noel@va.gov. 2. Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. polly.noel@va.gov. 3. HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Sepulveda, CA, USA. 4. Elizabeth Dole Center of Excellence for Veteran & Caregiver Research, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 6. Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 8. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 9. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.
BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.
Authors: Natabhona M Mabachi; Maribel Cifuentes; Juliana Barnard; Angela G Brega; Karen Albright; Barry D Weiss; Cindy Brach; David West Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2016 Jul-Sep
Authors: Margaret McLain McDonnell; Nancy C Elder; Ron Stock; Miriam Wolf; Anna Steeves-Reece; Tuesday Graham Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2020 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: David A Ganz; Jenny M Barnard; Nina Z Y Smith; Isomi M Miake-Lye; Deborah M Delevan; Alissa Simon; Danielle E Rose; Susan E Stockdale; Evelyn T Chang; Polly H Noël; Erin P Finley; Martin L Lee; Donna M Zulman; Kristina M Cordasco; Lisa V Rubenstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Amritha Bhat; Ian M Bennett; Amy M Bauer; Rinad S Beidas; Whitney Eriksen; Frances K Barg; Rachel Gold; Jürgen Unützer Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Reuben R McDaniel; Kurt C Stange; Carlos Roberto Jaen; Elizabeth Stewart Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa; Purnima Bharath; David A Ganz; Polly H Noël; Neetu Chawla; Jenny M Barnard; Danielle E Rose; Susan E Stockdale; Alissa Simon; Erin P Finley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128