Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low. CONCLUSION: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

The cost of implementing a 2-1-1 call center-based cancer control navigator program.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the cost of implementing a call center-based cancer screening navigator program. METHODS: Social service call centers in Houston and Weslaco, TX, assessed cancer risks and implemented cancer screening promotion and navigation. Micro costing was used to estimate the program costs. Staff logs and call records tracked personnel time and material costs, including a standard 30% overhead rate. Sensitivity analysis examined the effect of varying uncertain cost parameters. Scale effects were simulated for larger population coverage. RESULTS: The total cost to recruit and navigate 732 persons, out of 2933 individuals who called the center was $215,847. The participant time cost was $19,503, and the personnel cost was $116,523. The cost per navigated participant was $295 (95% CI, $290.56-$298.07). The average cost per participant for recruitment and referral only, was $36 (95% CI, $34.9-$36.9). Average cost declines to $34 for recruitment and referral, and to $225 for recruitment, referral, and navigation when the number of participants increases to 15,000 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding 2-1-1 referral services with opportunistic cancer screening promotion takes advantage of existing infrastructure but requires substantial additional staff time, participant time, and budget. Cost estimation is the first step in a full economic evaluation and informs program planners and decision-makers on the resource and budgetary requirements of this innovative strategy for increasing cancer screening in low income communities.