Group Health & Wellness Coaching: development and validation of the required competencies.

BACKGROUND: As the popularity and demonstrated effectiveness of Health and Wellness Coaching (HWC) continue to grow to address chronic disease prevalence worldwide, delivery of this approach in a group format is gaining traction, particularly in healthcare. Nonetheless, very little empirical work exists on group coaching and there are currently no published competencies for Group Health and Wellness Coaching (GHWC). METHODS: We used a well-established two-phase (Development and Judgment) process to create and validate GHWC competencies with strong content validity. RESULTS: Seven highly qualified Subject Matter Experts systematically identified and proposed the GHWC competencies, which were then validated by 78 National Board Certified Health and Wellness Coaches (NBC-HWCs) currently practicing GHWC who rated the importance and use frequency of each one. The validation study led to 72 competencies which are organized into the structure and process of GHWC. CONCLUSIONS: GHWC requires not only coaching skills, but significant group facilitation skills to guide the group process to best support members in maximizing health and well-being through self-directed behavioral change. As the presence of HWC continues to grow, it is imperative that GHWC skill standards be accepted and implemented for the safety of the public, the effectiveness of the intervention, and the value analysis of the field. Such standards will guide curriculum development, allow for a more robust research agenda, and give practical guidance for health and wellness coaches to responsibly run groups. High quality standards for GHWC are particularly needed in health care, where a Level III Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code for GHWC has been approved in the United States since 2019 and reimbursement of such has been approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for 2024.

Comparative efficacy and costs of various topical anesthetics for repair of dermal lacerations: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of infiltrated local anesthesia with topical anesthesia for repair of dermal laceration, to analyze the efficacy of single or multicomponent topical anesthetics, and to identify topical formulations that are potentially less costly and equally efficacious as cocaine-containing topical anesthetics. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Pediatric and adult subjects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two trials that randomized more than 3000 patients were identified. The majority of studies demonstrated equivalent or superior analgesic efficacy for topical formulations compared with conventional intradermal infiltration. We found that cocaine is not a mandatory component of topical anesthesia. The literature discloses no significant difference in anesthetic efficacy between topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine and each of the following 6 cocaine-free formulations: lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine, lidocaine-epinephrine, tetracaine-phenylephrine, tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine, bupivicaine-norepinephrine, or prilocaine-phenylephrine. CONCLUSION: Topical anesthetics are an efficacious, noninvasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. The use of cocaine-containing topical anesthetics can no longer be justified in light of its high cost and potential adverse effects. We have summarized the evidence, mostly favorable, supporting the use of various non-cocaine-containing topical anesthetics.