Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797. RESULTS: Implementation: the multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target >85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with >95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being "very satisfied" with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate >90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model.

Engaging faith-based resources to initiate and support diabetes self-management among African Americans: a collaboration of informal and formal systems of care.

Diabetes for Life (DFL), a project of Memphis Healthy Churches (MHC) and Common Table Health Alliance (CTHA; formerly Healthy Memphis Common Table [HMCT]), is a self-management program aimed at reducing health disparities among African Americans with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee. This program is one of five national projects that constitute The Alliance to Reduce Disparities in Diabetes, a 5-year grant-funded initiative of The Merck Foundation. Our purpose is to describe the faith-based strategies supporting DFL made possible by linking with an established informal health system, MHC, created by Baptist Memorial Health Care. The MHC network engaged volunteer Church Health Representatives as educators and recruiters for DFL. The components of the DFL project and the effect on chronic disease management for the participants will be described. The stages of DFL recruitment and implementation from an open-access to a closed model involving six primary care practices created a formal health system. The involvement of CTHA, a regional health collaborative, created the opportunity for DFL to expand the pool of health care providers and then recognize the core of providers most engaged with DFL patients. This collaboration between MHC and HMCT led to the organization of the formal health network.