Disparities in adherence to head and neck cancer follow-up guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aim to determine the frequency of adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network follow-up guidelines in a population of head and neck cancer patients who received curative treatment. We will also assess the impact of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and treatment setting on utilization of follow-up care. METHODS: This study included patients with biopsy-proven, nonmetastatic oropharyngeal or laryngeal cancer treated with radiotherapy between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, at a safety-net hospital or adjacent private academic hospital. Components of follow-up care analyzed included an appointment with a surgeon or radiation oncologist within 3 months and posttreatment imaging of the primary site within 6 months. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted using a logistic regression model to estimate odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four patients were included in this study. Of those, 88.8% received posttreatment imaging of the primary site within 6 months; 88.5% attended a follow-up appointment with a radiation oncologist within 3 months; and 71.1% of patients attended a follow-up appointment with a surgeon within 3 months. On multivariable analysis, private academic hospital treatment versus safety-net hospital treatment was associated with increased utilization of both surgical and radiation oncology follow-up. Non-Hispanic black (NHB) patients, Hispanic patients, and those with a low socioeconomic status were also less likely to receive follow-up. CONCLUSION: Safety-net hospital treatment, socioeconomic status, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHB race were associated with decreased follow-up service utilization. Quality improvement initiatives are needed to reduce these disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b Laryngoscope, 129:2303-2308, 2019.

Care coordination for complex cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net system: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors") are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer. METHODS: Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews. DISCUSSION: This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

A collaborative care team to integrate behavioral health care and treatment of poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes in an urban safety net primary care clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a collaborative care program for poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes and complex behavioral health disorders in an urban academically-affiliated safety net primary care clinic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluates multidisciplinary team care approach to diabetes in a safety net clinic, and included 634 primary care clinic patients with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)>9%. HbA1c, blood pressure, and depression severity were assessed at the initial visit and at the end of treatment, and compared to those of patients who were not referred to the team. RESULTS: The 151 patients referred to the program between March 2013 and November 2014 had a higher initial mean HbA1c: 10.6% vs. 9.4%, and were more likely to have depression (p=0.006), anxiety (p=0.04), and bipolar disorder (p=0.03), compared to the 483 patients who were not referred. During the 18-month study period, there was a mean decrease in HbA1c of 0.9 (10.6 to 9.4) among those referred to the team, compared to a mean decrease of 0.2 (9.4 to 9.2) among those not referred. This was a significantly greater percent change in HbA1c (p=0.008). CONCLUSION: The integration of behavioral healthcare into chronic care management of patients with diabetes is a promising strategy to improve outcomes among the high risk population in safety net settings.

Feasibility and impact of implementing a private care system's diabetes quality improvement intervention in the safety net: a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrated health care delivery systems devote considerable resources to developing quality improvement (QI) interventions. Clinics serving vulnerable populations rarely have the resources for such development but might benefit greatly from implementing approaches shown to be effective in other settings. Little trial-based research has assessed the feasibility and impact of such cross-setting translation and implementation in community health centers (CHCs). We hypothesized that it would be feasible to implement successful QI interventions from integrated care settings in CHCs and would positively impact the CHCs. METHODS: We adapted Kaiser Permanente's successful intervention, which targets guideline-based cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), through an iterative, stakeholder-driven process. We then conducted a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial in 11 CHCs in a staggered process with six "early" CHCs implementing the intervention one year before five "'late" CHCs. We measured monthly rates of patients with DM currently prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors/statins, if clinically indicated. Through segmented regression analysis, we evaluated the intervention's effects in June 2011-May 2013. Participants included ~6500 adult CHC patients with DM who were indicated for statins/ACE-inhibitors per national guidelines. RESULTS: Implementation of the intervention in the CHCs was feasible, with setting-specific adaptations. One year post-implementation, in the early clinics, there were estimated relative increases in guideline-concordant prescribing of 37.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI); 29.0-46.2 %) among patients indicated for both ACE-inhibitors and statins and 38.7 % (95 % CI; 23.2-54.2 %) among patients indicated for statins. No such increases were seen in the late (control) clinics in that period. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this was the first clinical trial testing the translation and implementation of a successful QI initiative from a private, integrated care setting into CHCs. This proved feasible and had significant impact but required considerable adaptation and implementation support. These results suggest the feasibility of adapting diverse strategies developed in integrated care settings for implementation in under-resourced clinics, with important implications for efficiently improving care quality in such settings. CLINICALTRIALS.gov: NCT02299791 .