Aides in Respiration Health Coaching for COPD
Aides in Respiration Health Coaching for COPD
This study examined whether health coaches can improve the management of chronic obstructive
 pulmonary disease (COPD) in a population of vulnerable patients cared for in 'safety-net'
 clinics. The study is designed as a randomized controlled trial for patients with moderate to
 severe COPD. Patients were randomized into a health coaching group and a usual care group.
 Those in the health coaching group received 9 months of active health coaching. Outcome
 variables were measured at baseline and after 9 months
Health coaching is a promising model for improving evidence-based care for patients with COPD
 which had not been evaluated at the time the current study began in 2014. Health coaching by
 health workers or peers trained as coaches, has emerged as an effective model to improve
 these management domains for children with asthma and adults with diabetes, and hypertension
 receiving care in urban safety-net clinics. The role of the health coach includes many of the
 activities also provided by patient navigators, patient educators, and community health
 workers. Health coaching is a patient-centered model that recognizes that that people living
 with chronic disease are the primary decision-makers in their care; it is a tailored approach
 that builds on the strengths and expertise of patients and helps to ensure that they have the
 knowledge and skills to be active participants within the medical encounter and to
 effectively manage their conditions. Incorporating health coaches into care delivery fits
 well with the of integrated care model recommended by the American Thoracic Society which is
 based on the Chronic Care Mode. Health coaching can work on several components of the Chronic
 Care Model as it applies to COPD to enhance the effectiveness of care delivery and promote
 patient goals. Health coaches provide decision support by helping execute customized care
 plans jointly developed by patients and providers. Coaches track care targets and conduct
 'gap analysis' to identify areas which are sub-optimal. Coaches also help patients to get the
 support they need by facilitating access to community, clinic, and specialist support,
 improving communication between patients and providers, working with patients to set goals
 and develop action plans to reach those goals. The goal of our study was to evaluate the
 effectiveness of a health coach model for improving outcomes for low-income urban patients
 with COPD. We conducted a randomized trial comparing 9 months of health coaching plus usual
 care (health coached arm) to usual care (usual care arm) alone for patients with moderate to
 severe COPD cared for at 7 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). The specific aims of
 the study were:

 Specific Aim 1. To compare disease specific quality of life for patients randomized to
 receive 9 months of health coaching plus usual care to those randomized to usual care alone.
 Our hypothesis was that mean quality of life, assessed by the Chronic Respiratory Disease
 Questionnaire total score and dyspnea domain score at 9 months, would be greater in patients
 in the health-coached arm when tested against the null hypothesis of no difference between
 health-coached and usual care patients.

 Specific Aim 2. To compare the number of exacerbations of COPD experienced by patients in the
 health coached arm to those in the usual care arm during the 9 month period starting at
 enrollment. COPD exacerbation was defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization
 for COPD-related diagnosis or the outpatient prescription of oral steroids for COPD-related
 diagnosis. Our hypothesis was patients in the health-coached arm would experience fewer
 exacerbations when tested against the null hypothesis of no difference between health-coached
 and usual care patients.

 Specific Aim 3. To compare exercise capacity at 9 months for patients in the health-coached
 arm to those in the usual care arm. Our hypothesis was that patients in the health-coached
 arm would have greater exercises capacity as measured by the 6-minute Walk Test when tested
 against the null hypothesis of no difference between health-coached and usual care patients.

 Specific Aim 4. To compare self-efficacy for management of their COPD for health-coached
 versus usual care patients at 9 months. Our hypothesis was that mean self-efficacy, as
 measured by Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale would be greater in patients in the
 health coached arm when tested against the null hypothesis of no difference in self-efficacy
 between health-coached and usual care patients.
Inclusion Criteria:

 -  Patient at one of the participating primary care clinics (at least 1 visit in past 12
 months)

 -  Age 40 and older

 -  Speaking English or Spanish

 -  Plan to continue to be seen at current clinic and to not leave the area for >2 months
 anytime in the next 9 months or to be absent at 9 or 15 months

 -  COPD defined as ever having had a post-bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in 1
 second/Forced Vital Capacity (FEV1/FVC) <.70 of FEV1/FVC of .70 to .74 and diagnosis
 of COPD by the study pulmonologist

 -  Willingness to attempt spirometry

 -  At least moderate COPD, defined as at least one of the following:

 -  Ever Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% predicted

 -  1 or more emergency department (ED) visit for COPD exacerbation in past 12 months

 -  1 or more hospital stays for COPD exacerbation in past 12 months

 -  1 or more prescriptions for oral prednisone for a COPD exacerbation in past 12
 months

 -  Ever on home oxygen therapy

 -  Ever outpatient percutaneous oxygen saturation of </=88%

 -  Ever outpatient partial pressure of oxygen (ppO2) by arterial blood gas (ABG) of
 </=55mm Hg

 -  At least 3 outpatient visits for COPD in past 12 months AND (a current COPD
 Assessment Test (CAT) score of >/=10 OR an modified Medical Research Council
 (mMRC) score of >/=2).

 -  Currently using tiotropium inhaler or combination inhaled corticosteroid and
 long-acting beta agonist

 Exclusion Criteria:

 -  Unable to participate in the study due to mental or physical impairment

 -  Severe or terminal illness that precludes focus on COPD

 -  No phone