Investigating potential disparities in clinical trial eligibility and enrollment at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Although barriers to trial accrual are well-reported, few studies have explored trial eligibility and trial offers as potential drivers of disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment. METHODS: We identified patients with gastrointestinal (GI) or head/neck (HN) malignancies who were seen as new patients at the University of Michigan Health Rogel Cancer Center in 2016. By exhaustive review of the electronic medical record, we assessed the primary outcomes: (1) eligibility for, (2) documented offer of, and (3) enrollment in a clinical trial. All 41 of the clinical trials available to these patients were considered. Independent variables included clinical and non-clinical patient-related factors. We assessed associations between these variables and the primary outcomes using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 1446 patients, 43% were female, 15% were over age 75, 6% were Black. 305 (21%) patients were eligible for a clinical trial. Among eligible patients, 154 (50%) had documentation of a trial offer and 90 (30%) enrolled. Among the GI cohort, bivariate analyses demonstrated that older age was associated with decreased trial eligibility. Bivariate analyses also demonstrated that Black race was associated with increased trial offer. After adjustment, patients 75 or older were less likely to be eligible for a clinical trial in the GI cohort; however, we found no significant associations between race and any of the outcomes after adjustment. Among eligible GI patients, we found no significant associations between non-clinical factors and enrollment. Among the HN cohort, bivariate analyses demonstrated that female sex, older age, Black race, and unpartnered marital status were associated with decreased likelihood of trial offer; however, we found no significant associations between race, age, and marital status and any of the outcomes after adjustment. We found no significant associations between non-clinical factors and eligibility after adjustment; however, women were less likely to be offered and to enroll in a clinical trial in the HN cohort. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with eligibility, documented offer, and enrollment differed between disease site cohorts at our institution. Future work is needed to ensure the equitable inclusion of women and elderly patients in clinical trials.

Controlling Hypertension through Education and Coaching in Kidney Disease (CHECK-D): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 30 million Americans. Early management focused on blood pressure (BP) control decreases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Less than 40% of patients with CKD achieve recommended BP targets due to many barriers. These barriers include a lack of understanding of the implications of their diagnosis and how to optimise their health.This cluster randomised control trial hypothesises that the combination of early primary care CKD education, and motivational interviewing (MI)-based health coach support, will improve patient behaviours aligned with BP control by increasing patient knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation. The results will aid in sustainable interventions for future patient-centric education and coaching support to improve quality and outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5. Outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5 receiving the intervention will be compared with similar patients within a control group. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) and systems methodologies will be used to optimise resource neutrality and leverage existing technology to support implementation and future dissemination. The innovative approach of this research focuses on the importance of a multidisciplinary team, including off-site patient coaching, that can intervene early in the CKD care continuum by supporting patients with education and coaching. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will test impact of BP control when clinician-delivered education is followed by 12 months of MI-based health coaching. We will compare outcomes in 350 patients with CKD stages 3-5 between intervention and control groups in primary care. CQI and systems methodologies will optimise education and coaching for future implementation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Boards (IRBMED) HUM00136011, HUM00150672 and SITE00000092 and the results of the study will be published on ClinicalTrials.gov, in peer-reviewed journals, as well as conference abstracts, posters and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04087798.

Ambulatory care-sensitive emergency visits among patients with medical home access.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize patterns of emergency department (ED) utilization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) among patients with established care within a patient-centered medical home. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review using Michigan Medicine's (formerly University of Michigan Health System) electronic health record. METHODS: Ten general medicine (GM) physicians reviewed 256 ambulatory care-sensitive ED encounters that occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, among patients of a GM medical home. Physician reviewers abstracted from the medical record the day and time of ED presentation and the source of ED referral (eg, patient self-referral vs physician referral). Physicians assessed the appropriateness of the care location (eg, ED vs primary care). Interrater reliability was assessed using the kappa statistic, and the χ2 test was used to assess differences in the appropriateness of the care location according to ED referral source. RESULTS: Compared with all other days of the week, the fewest number of ED visits occurred on weekend days, and nearly half of patients (48%) presented to the ED after daytime hours, which were defined as 8 am to 3:59 pm. The majority (n = 185; 72%) of patients were self-referred to the ED. The ED was considered the appropriate care location in more than half (53%) of the reviewed cases. Among the 119 cases considered appropriate for GM management, the majority (86%) were self-referred to the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ACSCs often presented to the ED without contacting their medical home. Frequently, the ED is the most appropriate location given symptoms at presentation.