CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01135381Updated Jun 3, 2013Results posted

IVR-Enhanced Care Transition Support for Complex Patients

An interventional study of IVR-Enhanced Care in Congestive Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2013-06-03.

Sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
511
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

For complex medical patients, the transition from hospital to home-based care is a vulnerable period, placing the patient at high risk for adverse events. Using a Care Transition conceptual model, the investigators propose developing and evaluating, through a randomized controlled trial, "e-Coach," an Interactive-Voice-Response-supported (IVR) Care Transition coaching intervention, focused initially on patients hospitalized with heart failure or obstructive lung disease. This trial will test the primary hypothesis that the proportion of patients with one or more re-hospitalizations during a 90-day post-discharge follow-up period will be less in an IVRsupported care transition intervention (e-Coach) compared to a "usual care" comparison group.

Read the detailed description

For complex medical patients, the transition from hospital to home-based care is a vulnerable period, placing the patient at high risk for adverse events, including the experience of a medical error or loss of community tenure. Recent successful studies have used a Care Transition Intervention (CTI), using a nurse who conducts home visits, telephone follow-up, and provides assistance at and after discharge. Although successful, this model is costly and and not feasible in settings serving geographically dispersed populations. We propose a cost-efficient technological solution to the problems presented by the traditional CTI through "e-Coach," an Interactive-Voice-Response-supported (IVR) Care Transition coaching intervention. We propose to develop and evaluate "e-Coach," by performing a randomized controlled trial of this intervention versus a usual care comparison group. Our Specific Aims are to: 1) Randomize 720 patients at high risk of transition-related errors (complex adult patients discharged alive after a hospitalization with congestive heart failure (CHF) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), from a geographically diverse area including many rural areas across Alabama and the South) to an IVR-supported care transition program ("e-Coach") versus a usual care comparison group. The IVR system will actively call patients at multiple intervals after discharge. In a stepped-care approach, the IVR will be further supported by a Care Transition nurse who monitors patient symptoms through the e-Coach IVR and supports patient self management through telephone-based interactions when needed, up to 3 months after discharge; 2) Evaluate use of the e-Coach by patients and healthcare providers; 3) Evaluate the impact of the e-Coach on patient outcomes, including 90 day rehospitalizations, successful community tenure over a 3 month period, medication discrepancies, and patient self-efficacy based on the previously validated Care Transition Measure; and 4) Quantify the cost associated with the e-Coach.

02

Conditions studied

  • Congestive Heart Failure
  • Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Keywords

  • care transitions
  • information technology
03

In context

Lung Diseases, Obstructive

2,591 studies on the registry are indexed under Lung Diseases, Obstructive; 198 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 511 is above the median of 66 across 1,837 interventional studies indexed under Lung Diseases, Obstructive.

Browse Lung Diseases, Obstructive studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham is the lead sponsor of 1,396 studies on the registry; 284 are open to participants now.

Of its 156 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 124 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • CHF/COPD patients
  • English-speaking
  • Medicare beneficiaries

Amendment to Inclusion Criteria:

  • Recruited non-Medicare eligible beneficiaries

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Prognosis of 6 months or less
  • Cognitive impairment with no available proxy/caregiver
  • No possession of a phone

Amendments to exclusion criteria:

  • heart or lung transplant recipients
  • dialysis patients
  • individuals already in the Cystic Fibrosis program or receiving intensive monitored care
  • individuals with a ventricular assist device (LVAD; RVAD; BiVAD)
  • individuals utilizing a pre-paid phone service
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
511 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    CHF patients, IVR-Enhanced Care

    Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) who receive the interactive voice response (IVR) intervention.

    Behavioral: IVR-Enhanced Care

  • Experimental
    COPD patients, IVR-Enhanced Care

    Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who receive the interactive voice response (IVR) intervention.

    Behavioral: IVR-Enhanced Care

  • No intervention
    CHF patients, Usual Discharge Care

    Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) who receive usual discharge care (no intervention).

  • No intervention
    COPD patients, Usual Discharge Care

    Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who receive usual discharge care (no intervention).

Interventions

  • BehavioralIVR-Enhanced Care

    Those randomized to e-Coach will receive initial coaching in the hospital and then will be called by the interactive voice response-supported (IVR) system at specified intervals after discharge for monitoring. Any red flags noted through the IVR monitoring system will be transmitted to the care transition coaches, who contact patients and coach them on how to address problems identified.

    Also known as: e-Coach, IVR, IVRS, IVR Care Transition Support, Interactive voice response-supported system

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Re-hospitalizations

    Time frame: During the 30days after discharge

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rehospitalizations at 90 Days

    Time frame: 90 days

  2. Community Tenure

    The number of days a patient spends in the home versus the hospital at 30 days.

    Time frame: 30 days

07

Results

Posted Jun 3, 2013
Limitations and caveats
Limitations include generalizability. Our single healthcare system likely has unique characteristics. Readmission to the hospital is also a limited quality measure. There is currently no way to deem if readmissions are appropriate or avoidable.

Participant flow

Patients were recruited from multiple clinical units in a large tertiary care clinical facility in Alabama with a geographically wide, mostly rural catchment area. Recruitment period: 2/2010 to 3/2012.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneCHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge Care
Started1891856968
Completed1681786567
Not completed21741

Outcome measures

PrimaryRe-hospitalizations
Time frame:
During the 30days after discharge
Reported as:
Number · participants
Re-hospitalizations
participantsCHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge Care
Re-hospitalizations2726814
SecondaryRehospitalizations at 90 Days
Time frame:
90 days
Reported as:
Number · participants
Rehospitalizations at 90 Days
participantsCHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge Care
Rehospitalizations at 90 Days54482226
SecondaryCommunity Tenure

The number of days a patient spends in the home versus the hospital at 30 days.

Time frame:
30 days
Reported as:
Mean · days
Community Tenure
daysCHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge Care
Community Tenure1.62 ± 4.61.48 ± 4.10.52 ± 1.81.6 ± 3.5

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data were collected throughout the study period (2 years). Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
CHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced Care—0/168 (0%)0/168 (0%)
CHF Patients, Usual Discharge Care—0/178 (0%)0/178 (0%)
COPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced Care—0/65 (0%)0/65 (0%)
COPD Patients, Usual Discharge Care—0/67 (0%)0/67 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

A few patients were excluded from the final study groups. 6 patients died prior to discharge, 2 patients declined participation, and 4 patients became ineligible. After hospital discharge, 12 patients declined follow-up, we were unable to contact 5 for follow-up, and 4 became ineligible.

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)CHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge CareTotal
<=18 years00000
Between 18 and 65 years94893338254
>=65 years74893229224
Age Continuous
Age Continuous(years)CHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge CareTotal
Mean62 ± 12.563 ± 13.462 ± 13.461 ± 14.063 ± 12.4
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)CHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge CareTotal
Female86823821227
Male82962746251
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)CHF Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCHF Patients, Usual Discharge CareCOPD Patients, IVR-Enhanced CareCOPD Patients, Usual Discharge CareTotal
United States1681786567478
08

Study locations

1 site
  • University Hospital and UAB Highlands
    Birmingham, Alabama 35294, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Ritchie C, Richman J, Sobko H, Bodner E, Phillips B, Houston T. The E-coach transition support computer telephony implementation study: protocol of a randomized trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Nov;33(6):1172-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.08.007. Epub 2012 Aug 19. PubMed 22922245 ↗
  • Ritchie CS, Houston TK, Richman JS, Sobko HJ, Berner ES, Taylor BB, Salanitro AH, Locher JL. The E-Coach technology-assisted care transition system: a pragmatic randomized trial. Transl Behav Med. 2016 Sep;6(3):428-37. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0422-8. PubMed 27339715 ↗
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 3, 2013, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01135381
Lead sponsor
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Collaborators
University of California, San Francisco, US Department of Veterans Affairs, University of Massachusetts, Worcester
Responsible party
Christine Ritchie (Principal Investigator, University of Alabama at Birmingham) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jun 2, 2010
Start date
Feb 2010
Primary completion
Mar 2012
Completion
Mar 2012
Results posted
Jun 3, 2013
Last update
Jun 3, 2013

Study contacts

Christine S Ritchie, MD, MSPH
principal investigator · University of Alabama at Birmingham
Thomas K Houston, MD, MSPH
study director · University of Massachusetts, Worcester
Joshua Richman, MD, PhD
study chair · University of Alabama at Birmingham

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2013. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion