Anzeige
Erschienen in:
09.06.2021 | Original Research
The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 1/2022
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
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