Trial reportJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2021
Implementation and Impact of the Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation Model to Improve Care for Patients with COPD.
Trial report in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary specialist health coach consultation model: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth coaching has emerged as an important tool for improving patient-centered care in primary care practice but has not specifically been evaluated for patients whose care is shared by a primary care provider (PCP) and specialist.
methodsAs part of a nine-month randomized controlled trial comparing health coaching to usual care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the authors developed the Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation (PuSHCon). In this novel model, health coaches facilitated pulmonary specialist consultations for patients with COPD without the need for an in-person visit. Observational data from the randomized controlled trial were analyzed to study the implementation, adoption, and impact of the PuSHCon model for 70 of 92 patients randomized to the health coaching arm and for 17 of 100 patients in the control arm (who received PuSHCon after the end of the study). Quality of care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC).
resultsOf 87 patients who participated in PuSHCon, 74 (85.1%) received one or more specialist recommendations, of which 86.8% were implemented. Only 12 patients (13.8%) subsequently required an in-person visit with the PuSHCon specialist. The proportion of PuSHCon participants receiving guideline-concordant care increased from 64.7% to 94.1% (p < 0.001). The mean PACIC item score increased from 3.48 to 3.74 (p = 0.03).
conclusionThe PuSHCon model facilitated consultations that resulted in changes in care, which were implemented for a majority of patients. Guideline-concordant care and patient-reported quality of care increased over nine months. This model could potentially be expanded to help patients with other chronic conditions when PCPs and specialists share patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.