Community Outreach and Cardiovascular Health (COACH) Trial A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Nurse Practitioner/Community Health Worker Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction in Urban Community Health Centers

School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 525 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (Impact Factor: 5.66). 09/2011; 4(6):595-602. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.961573
Source: PubMed


Despite well-publicized guidelines on the appropriate management of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, the implementation of risk-reducing practices remains poor. This report describes the results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of a comprehensive program of cardiovascular disease risk reduction delivered by nurse practitioner /community health worker (NP/CHW) teams versus enhanced usual care (EUC) to improve lipids, blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and patient perceptions of the quality of their chronic illness care in patients in urban community health centers.
A total of 525 patients with documented cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, or hypertension and levels of LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, or HbA1c that exceeded goals established by national guidelines were randomly assigned to NP/CHW (n=261) or EUC (n=264) groups. The NP/CHW intervention included aggressive pharmacological management and tailored educational and behavioral counseling for lifestyle modification and problem solving to address barriers to adherence and control. Compared with EUC, patients in the NP/CHW group had significantly greater 12-month improvement in total cholesterol (difference, 19.7 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol (difference,15.9 mg/dL), triglycerides (difference, 16.3 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (difference, 6.2 mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (difference, 3.1 mm Hg), HbA1c (difference, 0.5%), and perceptions of the quality of their chronic illness care (difference, 1.2 points).
An intervention delivered by an NP/CHW team using individualized treatment regimens based on treat-to-target algorithms can be an effective approach to improve risk factor status and perceptions of chronic illness care in high-risk patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb, Oct 07, 2015
78 Reads
  • Source
    • "Other studies have demonstrated that nurse led interventions can improve cardiac risk factors in high-risk patients [9] and that nurse case managers using a treatment algorithm can improve the number of individuals with control of multiple cardiovascular risk factors [5]. Practice-based nurses accomplished comparable results with GPs regarding clinical parameters, and achieved better patient satisfaction [10] both at the one year of follow-up assessment. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1995 Clalit Health Services introduced a structured follow-up schedule, by primary care nurses, of diabetic patients. This was supplementary care, given in addition to the family physician’s follow-up care. This article aims to describe the performance of diabetes follow-up and diabetes control in patients with additional structured nursing follow-up care, compared to those patients followed only by their family physician. We randomly selected 2,024 type 2 diabetic subjects aged 40–76 years. For each calendar year, from 2005–2007, patients who were “under physician follow-up only” were compared to those who received additional structured nursing follow-up care. Main outcomes Complete diabetes follow-up parameters including: HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, microalbumin, blood pressure measurements and fundus examination. The average age of study participants was 60.7 years, 52% were females and 38% were from low socioeconomic status (SES). In 2005, 39.5% of the diabetic patients received structured nursing follow-up, and the comparable figures for 2006 and 2007 were 42.1% 49.6%, respectively. The intervention subjects tended to be older, from lower SES, suffered from more chronic diseases and visited their family physician more frequently than the control patients. Patients in the study group were more likely to perform a complete diabetes follow-up plan: 52.8% vs. 21.5% (2005; p < 0.001) 55.5% vs. 30.3% (2006; p < 0.001), 52.3% vs. 35.7% (2007; p < 0.001). LDL cholesterol levels were lower in the study group only in 2005: 103.7 vs. 110.0 p < 0.001. Subjects with supplementary structured nursing follow-up care were more likely to perform complete diabetes follow-up protocol. Our results reinforce the importance of teamwork in diabetic care. Further study is required to identify strategies for channeling the use of the limited resources to the patients who stand to benefit the most.
    Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 08/2014; 3(1):27. DOI:10.1186/2045-4015-3-27
  • Source
    • "In addition, the Vale’s study focused on hospital based disease management programme. On the other hand, the COACH programme by Allen et al. [17] utilised the model of community-based participatory research methodology to design the disease management programme, which consisted of enhanced usual care with or without intensive disease management by nurse practitioner/community health workers. Both studies had adopted many essential elements from the Chronic Care Model [3], which had been proven to improve chronic disease outcomes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of Counselling and Advisory Care for Health (COACH) programme in managing dyslipidaemia among primary care practices in Malaysia. This open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial compared the COACH programme delivered by primary care physicians alone (PCP arm) and primary care physicians assisted by nurse educators (PCP-NE arm). METHODS: This was a multi-centre, open label, randomised trial of a disease management programme (COACH) among dyslipidaemic patients in 21 Malaysia primary care practices. The participating centres enrolled 297 treatment naive subjects who had the primary diagnosis of dyslipidaemia; 149 were randomised to the COACH programme delivered by primary care physicians assisted by nurse educators (PCP-NE) and 148 to care provided by primary care physicians (PCP) alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean percentage change from baseline LDL-C at week 24 between the 2 study arms. Secondary endpoints included mean percentage change from baseline of lipid profile (TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, TC: HDL ratio), Framingham Cardiovascular Health Risk Score and absolute risk change from baseline in blood pressure parameters at week 24. The study also assessed the sustainability of programme efficacy at week 36. RESULTS: Both study arms demonstrated improvement in LDL-C from baseline. The least squares (LS) mean change from baseline LDL-C were -30.09% and -27.54% for PCP-NE and PCP respectively. The difference in mean change between groups was 2.55% (p=0.288), with a greater change seen in the PCP-NE arm. Similar observations were made between the study groups in relation to total cholesterol change at week 24. Significant difference in percentage change from baseline of HDL-C were observed between the PCP-NE and PCP groups, 3.01%, 95% CI 0.12-5.90, p=0.041, at week 24. There was no significant difference in lipid outcomes between 2 study groups at week 36 (12 weeks after the programme had ended). CONCLUSION: Patients who received coaching and advice from primary care physicians (with or without the assistance by nurse educators) showed improvement in LDL-cholesterol. Disease management services delivered by PCP-NE demonstrated a trend towards add-on improvements in cholesterol control compared to care delivered by physicians alone; however, the improvements were not maintained when the services were withdrawn.Trial registrationNational Medical Research Registration (NMRR) Number: NMRR-08-287-1442Trial Registration Number ( Identifier): NCT00708370.
    BMC Family Practice 10/2012; 13(1):97. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-13-97 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 11/2011; 4(6):584-6. DOI:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.963306 · 5.66 Impact Factor
Show more