The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination.

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.

Toolkit and distance coaching strategies: a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to implement care coordination quality improvement projects in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination tools and toolkits can be challenging to implement. Practice facilitation, an active but expensive strategy, may facilitate toolkit implementation. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of distance coaching, a form of practice facilitation, for improving the implementation of care coordination quality improvement (QI) projects. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) initiative. Twelve matched US Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were randomized to receive coaching and an online care coordination toolkit ("coached"; n = 6) or access to the toolkit only ("non-coached"; n = 6). We did interviews at six, 12, and 18 months. For coached sites, we'ly collected site visit fieldnotes, prospective coach logs, retrospective coach team debriefs, and project reports. We employed matrix analysis using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a taxonomy of outcomes. We assessed each site's project(s) using an adapted Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Eleven sites implemented a local CTAC project. Eight sites (5 coached, 3 non-coached) used at least one tool from the toolkit. Coached sites implemented significantly more complex projects than non-coached sites (11.5 vs 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.75-6.25, p < 0.001); engaged in more formal implementation processes (planning, engaging, reflecting and evaluating); and generally had larger, more multidisciplinary QI teams. Regardless of coaching status, sites focused on internal organizational improvement and low-intensity educational projects rather than the full suite of care coordination tools. At 12 months, half the coached and non-coached sites had clinic-wide project implementation; the remaining coached sites had implemented most of their project(s), while the remaining non-coached sites had either not implemented anything or conducted limited pilots. At 18 months, coached sites reported ongoing effort to monitor, adapt, and spread their CTAC projects, while non-coached sites did not report much continuing work. Coached sites accrued benefits like improved clinic relationships and team QI skill building that non-coached sites did not describe. CONCLUSIONS: Coaching had a positive influence on QI skills of (and relationships among) coached sites' team members, and the scope and rigor of projects. However, a 12-month project period was potentially too short to ensure full project implementation or to address cross-setting or patient-partnered initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03063294 .