Implementation and Impact of the Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation Model to Improve Care for Patients with COPD

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Health coaching has emerged as an important tool for improving patient-centered care in primary care practice but has not specifically been evaluated for patients whose care is shared by a primary care provider (PCP) and specialist. METHODS: As part of a nine-month randomized controlled trial comparing health coaching to usual care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the authors developed the Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation (PuSHCon). In this novel model, health coaches facilitated pulmonary specialist consultations for patients with COPD without the need for an in-person visit. Observational data from the randomized controlled trial were analyzed to study the implementation, adoption, and impact of the PuSHCon model for 70 of 92 patients randomized to the health coaching arm and for 17 of 100 patients in the control arm (who received PuSHCon after the end of the study). Quality of care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). RESULTS: Of 87 patients who participated in PuSHCon, 74 (85.1%) received one or more specialist recommendations, of which 86.8% were implemented. Only 12 patients (13.8%) subsequently required an in-person visit with the PuSHCon specialist. The proportion of PuSHCon participants receiving guideline-concordant care increased from 64.7% to 94.1% (p < 0.001). The mean PACIC item score increased from 3.48 to 3.74 (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The PuSHCon model facilitated consultations that resulted in changes in care, which were implemented for a majority of patients. Guideline-concordant care and patient-reported quality of care increased over nine months. This model could potentially be expanded to help patients with other chronic conditions when PCPs and specialists share patient care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.