Building teams in primary care: A practical guide.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care is changing to a team-based model. A number of high-performing primary-care practices in the United States have succeeded in making the transition to team-based care. METHOD: Site visits were conducted to 29 high-performing primary-care practices. Observations made in these practices were summarized for common elements exhibited by care teams. A limited literature search was done to review corroborating evidence. RESULTS: Teams observed in the 29 practices were found to exhibit 9 elements: a stable team structure, colocation, a culture shift in progress from physician-driven to team-based care, defined roles with training and skill checks to reinforce those roles, standing orders and protocols, defined workflows and workflow mapping, staffing ratios adequate to facilitate new roles, ground rules, and modes of communication, including team meetings, huddles, and minute-to-minute interaction. DISCUSSION: These 9 elements may be helpful to practices making the transition to team-based care.

Are Low-Income Peer Health Coaches Able to Master and Utilize Evidence-Based Health Coaching?

PURPOSE: A randomized controlled trial found that patients with diabetes had lower HbA1c levels after 6 months of peer health coaching than patients who did not receive coaching. This paper explores whether the peer coaches in that trial, all low-income patients with diabetes, mastered and utilized an evidence-based health coaching training curriculum. The curriculum included 5 core features: ask-tell-ask, closing the loop, know your numbers, behavior-change action plans, and medication adherence counseling. METHODS: This paper includes the results of exams administered to trainees, exit surveys performed with peer coaches who completed the study and those who dropped out, observations of peer coaches meeting with patients, and analysis of in-depth interviews with peer coaches who completed the study. RESULTS: Of the 32 peer coach trainees who completed the training, 71.9% lacked a college degree; 25.0% did not graduate from high school. The 26 trainees who passed the exams attended 92.7% of training sessions compared with 80.6% for the 6 trainees who did not pass. Peer coaches who completed the study wanted to continue peer coaching work and had confidence in their abilities despite their not consistently employing the coaching techniques with their patients. Quotations describe coaches' perceptions of the training. CONCLUSIONS: Of low-income patients with diabetes who completed the evidenced-based health coaching training, 81% passed written and oral exams and became effective peer health coaches, although they did not consistently use the techniques taught.

The 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care.

Our experiences studying exemplar primary care practices, and our work assisting other practices to become more patient centered, led to a formulation of the essential elements of primary care, which we call the 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. The building blocks include 4 foundational elements-engaged leadership, data-driven improvement, empanelment, and team-based care-that assist the implementation of the other 6 building blocks-patient-team partnership, population management, continuity of care, prompt access to care, comprehensiveness and care coordination, and a template of the future. The building blocks, which represent a synthesis of the innovative thinking that is transforming primary care in the United States, are both a description of existing high-performing practices and a model for improvement.

Diabetes peer coaching: do "better patients" make better coaches?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics of peer coaches associated with improvement in diabetes control among low-income patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Low-income patients with type 2 diabetes who spoke English or Spanish from 6 urban clinics in San Francisco, California, were invited to participate in the study. Twenty participants received training and provided peer coaching to 109 patients over a 6-month peer coaching intervention. Primary outcome was average change in patient glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C). Characteristics of peer coaches included age, gender, years with diabetes, A1C, body mass index (BMI), levels of diabetes-related distress, self-efficacy in diabetes self-management, and depression. RESULTS: Patient improvement in A1C was associated with having a coach with a lower sense of self-efficacy in diabetes management (P < .001), higher level of diabetes-related distress (P = .01), and lower depression score (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Coach characteristics are associated with patient success in improving A1C. "Better" levels of coach diabetes self-efficacy and distress were not helpful and, in fact, were associated with less improvement in patient A1C, suggesting that some coach uncertainty about his or her own diabetes might foster improved patient self-management. These coach characteristics should be considered when recruiting peer coaches.

How do peer coaches improve diabetes care for low-income patients?: a qualitative analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to explore the perspectives and roles of peer coaches, who are patients with diabetes trained to provide diabetes self-management support (DSMS) to other patients. METHODS: A focus group and 17 qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with community-based peer coaches in San Francisco in order to better understand the process by which these coaches engaged with their patients. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using methods based on grounded theory to develop a theoretical model of peer coach roles. RESULTS: Peer coaches play 3 principal roles in providing DSMS: advisor, supporter, and role model. While working with patients, peer coaches had different approaches to setting emotional boundaries and to allocating responsibility for implementing health behavior changes. Peer coaches were more consistent in how they sought resources from providers. Peer coaches also became empowered to better manage their own diabetes. CONCLUSION: Peer coaches are a highly motivated potential workforce uniquely positioned to teach and empower patients by building trust through shared experiences. The variability in coaching styles suggests an inherent diversity among peer coaches that must be accounted for in future strategies for design, recruitment, training, and oversight of peer coaching programs.

Impact of peer health coaching on glycemic control in low-income patients with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Peer health coaches offer a potential model for extending the capacity of primary care practices to provide self-management support for patients with diabetes. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether clinic-based peer health coaching, compared with usual care, improves glycemic control for low-income patients who have poorly controlled diabetes. METHOD: We undertook a randomized controlled trial enrolling patients from 6 public health clinics in San Francisco. Twenty-three patients with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level of less than 8.5%, who completed a 36-hour health coach training class, acted as peer coaches. Patients from the same clinics with HbA1C levels of 8.0% or more were recruited and randomized to receive health coaching (n = 148) or usual care (n = 151). The primary outcome was the difference in change in HbA1C levels at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with a decrease in HbA1C level of 1.0% or more and proportion of patients with an HbA1C level of less than 7.5% at 6 months. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model with and without adjustment for differences in baseline variables. RESULTS: At 6 months, HbA1C levels had decreased by 1.07% in the coached group and 0.3% in the usual care group, a difference of 0.77% in favor of coaching (P = .01, adjusted). HbA1C levels decreased 1.0% or more in 49.6% of coached patients vs 31.5% of usual care patients (P = .001, adjusted), and levels at 6 months were less than 7.5% for 22.0% of coached vs 14.9% of usual care patients (P = .04, adjusted). CONCLUSIONS: Peer health coaching significantly improved diabetes control in this group of low-income primary care patients.

Peer coaching to improve diabetes self-management: which patients benefit most?

BACKGROUND: Peer health coaching is an effective method of enhancing self-management support in patients with diabetes. It is unclear whether peer health coaching is equally beneficial to all patients with poor glycemic control, or is most effective for subgroups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the effect of peer health coaching on hemoglobin A1c (A1c) is modified by characteristics that are known to be associated with diabetes control. DESIGN: Sub-group analyses of randomized control trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and ninety nine patients with diabetes receiving care in public health clinics who participated in a randomized controlled trial of peer health coaches. MAIN MEASURES: We examined whether the association between study group and change in A1c was modified by differences in patients' demographic, behavioral or psychosocial characteristics. Analyses were adjusted for co-variables associated with change in A1c. KEY RESULTS: The effect of coaching on patient A1c was modified by patients' level of self-management and degree of medication adherence as baseline (p=.02, and p=.03 respectively in adjusted models). For participants with "low" self-management (one standard deviation below the mean score), the usual care group experienced a slight increase in A1c (0.3 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (-0.9 %). For participants with "high" self-management (one standard deviation above the mean score), both groups experienced a similar decrease in A1c (usual care group: -1.0 %; health coaching group: -1.1 %). Participants with "low" medication adherence in the usual care group experienced an increase in A1c (0.5 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (-0.8 %). Participants with "high" medication adherence experienced similar decreases (usual care group: -1.1 %; health coaching group: -1.3 %). CONCLUSION: Peer health coaching had a larger effect on lowering A1c in patients with low levels of medication adherence and self-management support than in patients with higher levels. Peer health coaching interventions may be most effective if targeted to high-risk patients with diabetes with poor glycemic control and with poor self-management and medication adherence.

The effectiveness of peer health coaching in improving glycemic control among low-income patients with diabetes: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although self-management support improves diabetes outcomes, it is not consistently provided in health care settings strained for time and resources. One proposed solution to personnel and funding shortages is to utilize peer coaches, patients trained to provide diabetes education and support to other patients. Coaches share similar experiences about living with diabetes and are able to reach patients within and beyond the health care setting. Given the limited body of evidence that demonstrates peer coaching significantly improves chronic disease care, this present study examines the impact of peer coaching delivered in a primary care setting on diabetes outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The aim of this multicenter, randomized control trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing peer coaches to improve clinical outcomes and self-management skills in low-income patients with poorly controlled diabetes. A total of 400 patients from six primary health centers based in San Francisco that serve primarily low-income populations will be randomized to receive peer coaching (n = 200) or usual care (n = 200) over 6 months. Patients in the peer coach group receive coaching from patients with diabetes who are trained and mentored as peer coaches. The primary outcome is change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes include change in: systolic blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), LDL cholesterol, diabetes self-care activities, medication adherence, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes self-efficacy, and depression. Clinical values (HbA1c, LDL cholesterol and blood pressure) and self-reported diabetes self-efficacy and self-care activities are measured at baseline and after 6 months for patients and coaches. Peer coaches are also assessed at 12 months. DISCUSSION: Patients with diabetes, who are trained as peer health coaches, are uniquely poised to provide diabetes self management support and education to patients. This study is designed to investigate the impact of peer health coaching in patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Additionally, we will assess disease outcomes in patients with well controlled diabetes who are trained and work as peer health coaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01040806.