Health coaching is the process of working with a trained coach, peer, or healthcare professional towards self-determined health and wellness goals. Health coaching is being increasingly adopted in multiple healthcare settings and has been shown to improve overall health outcomes and long-term maintenance of chronic conditions in multiple countries and healthcare settings. Research surrounding the costs of implementing health coaching and its effects on healthcare costs, particularly long-term costs, has been limited. Although analysis of healthcare costs has become an important priority in recent years, the available literature looking at the cost impacts of health coaching is small and inconclusive, finding mixed results with a variety of methodologies. This scoping review aims to identify gaps in the literature and help set a research agenda regarding the costs of health coaching implementation and its impacts.

The scoping review will be structured according to Levac et al’s enhancement to Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for conducting scoping reviews. PubMed, Embase, and the Health and Medicine Collection will be searched for peer-reviewed research that includes health and wellness coaching and some measurement of cost. Details about the type of study, cost analysis, methodology and results from the included articles will be extracted and summarised. Full-text publications, excluding editorials and opinion pieces, included in this scoping review will be published in 2017 or later, will be written in English, will align with the definition of health coaching as described by the National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching, and will include cost measurement. This review will include publications not captured in the previous integrative literature review looking at the cost-effectiveness of health coaching.

Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and through presentations to both health system and community-based entities currently using or considering adopting health coaching. Ethics approval is not a requirement for this review as no human research participants will be involved. All data will be obtained from publicly available literature, with no primary data generated.

Despite advancements in biomedical and healthcare research, the translation of evidence into routine practice within healthcare systems often lags, perpetuating inefficiencies and disparities in care delivery. Learning health systems (LHS), which integrate internal data and external evidence for continuous improvement, hold promise for addressing these gaps. Implementation science (IS), focused on promoting the systematic uptake of evidence-based practices, offers a robust framework to drive sustainable improvements within LHS. However, the practical application of IS principles in LHS remains underexplored. This scoping review aims to systematically map the literature on the application of IS in LHS, highlighting themes, gaps and opportunities for advancing future practices.

This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, supported by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The review employs a population-concept-context framework, focusing on studies engaged in LHS activities and the application of IS principles in various healthcare settings. Relevant literature will be searched across multiple databases, including OVID/Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Health Policy Reference Center. Eligible studies will be screened, and data will be extracted and synthesised using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Key outcomes include characterising IS applications in LHS, evaluating barriers and facilitators, exploring equity integration, and identifying knowledge gaps.

As this study does not involve primary data collection, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations to inform future research and practice.

This protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BMQ6J).

Discharge planning (DP) is essential to ensure continuity of care during patient transitions between inpatient and outpatient settings. Although DP has been legally required for all hospitals in Germany since 2017, several studies show considerable variation in its implementation, likely due to differences in structural characteristics and organisational processes. Both quality and efficiency-enhancing DP processes are particularly important in the context of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of mortality and a major contributor to healthcare costs in Germany. The ‘Ready to Discharge’ (R2D) project investigates the implementation status, influencing factors and outcomes of DP in cardiac units of German hospitals. By integrating quantitative and qualitative data, we aim to identify best practices and provide actionable recommendations for improving DP processes.

A mixed-methods study design will be used. Quantitative analyses will be based on primary data from hospital and patient surveys combined with secondary data from health insurance claims and hospital quality reports. Key outcome measures will include healthcare utilisation outcomes (eg, readmissions, emergency department visits), patient health status outcomes (eg, patient satisfaction, self-rated health) and medication-related outcomes (eg, medication adherence). Qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals will enrich the findings by providing insights into barriers and facilitators to DP.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bergische University of Wuppertal and the German Federal Office for Social Security. Informed consent will be obtained for all primary data collections. Hospital managing directors will be informed prior to the hospital survey and will be able to withdraw consent. Patients can withdraw their consent at any time. Secondary data will be analysed in pseudonymised form to ensure patient confidentiality. Results will be disseminated through workshops, regional and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of adverse patient outcomes across various settings, including inpatient care. To enhance the appropriateness of medication therapy management for patients during hospital stays, computerised interventions have shown promise with regard to patient safety. This study assesses whether the implementation of a clinical decision support system will optimise the process of inpatient medication therapy to prevent inappropriate medication use and thus promote patient safety.

The intervention will be evaluated in a prospective, cluster-randomised controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design. The study will be conducted in 12 hospitals across Germany over a total period of 33 months. Patients will be treated according to the group status of the hospital and receive either standard care or the Transsektorale Optimierung der Patientensicherheit or trans-sectoral optimisation of patient safety intervention. The primary outcome is the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary endpoints are, for example, inappropriate prescriptions, utilisation of different health services, cost-effectiveness, as well as patient-reported outcome measures. Parameters describing the attitudes of patients and healthcare professionals towards the intervention and organisational change processes will be collected as part of the process evaluation. The primary endpoint will be evaluated using hospital and outpatient claims data from participating statutory health insurances at the population level. There are multiple secondary endpoints with data linkage of primary and secondary data at study participant level. Statistical analysis will make use of (generalised) linear mixed models or generalised estimating equations, taking account of independent covariables. All data analyses of the process evaluation will be descriptive and explorative.

Data collection, storage and evaluation meet all applicable data protection regulations. The trial has been approved by the Ethics Committees of the University of Wuppertal and the Medical Association of Saarland, Germany. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications and local and international conferences.

DRKS00025485.