Establishing an Integrative Medicine Program Within an Academic Health Center: Essential Considerations.

Integrative medicine (IM) refers to the combination of conventional and "complementary" medical services (e.g., chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, mindfulness training). More than half of all medical schools in the United States and Canada have programs in IM, and more than 30 academic health centers currently deliver multidisciplinary IM care. What remains unclear, however, is the ideal delivery model (or models) whereby individuals can responsibly access IM care safely, effectively, and reproducibly in a coordinated and cost-effective way.Current models of IM across existing clinical centers vary tremendously in their organizational settings, principal clinical focus, and services provided; practitioner team composition and training; incorporation of research activities and educational programs; and administrative organization (e.g., reporting structure, use of medical records, scope of clinical practice) and financial strategies (i.e., specific business plans and models for sustainability).In this article, the authors address these important strategic issues by sharing lessons learned from the design and implementation of an IM facility within an academic teaching hospital, the Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard Medical School; and review alternative options based on information about IM centers across the United States.The authors conclude that there is currently no consensus as to how integrative care models should be optimally organized, implemented, replicated, assessed, and funded. The time may be right for prospective research in "best practices" across emerging models of IM care nationally in an effort to standardize, refine, and replicate them in preparation for rigorous cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Within-team Patterns of Communication and Referral in Multimodal Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients by an Integrative Care Team.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent and costly public health problem with few treatment options that provide consistent and greater than modest benefits. Treatment of CLBP is shifting from unimodal to multimodal and multidisciplinary approaches, including biopsychosocially-based complementary and integrative care. Multidisciplinary approaches require unique levels of communication and coordination amongst clinicians; however, to date few studies have evaluated patterns of communication and decision making amongst clinicians collaborating in the care of challenging patients with CLBP. METHODS: As part of an observational study evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrative, team-based care model for the treatment of CLBP, we used multiple qualitative research methods to characterize within-team cross-referral and communication amongst jointly-trained practitioners representing diverse biomedical and complementary disciplines. Patterns of communication and coordinated care are summarized for 3 cases of CLBP treated by multiple members (≥3) of an integrative medical team embedded within an academic hospital. RESULTS: Patients were aged from 36 to 88 years with varied comorbidities. Qualitative content analysis revealed 5 emergent themes regarding integrative patient care and treatment decision in this clinic: (1) the fundamental importance of the clinic's formal teamwork training; (2) the critical communicative and collaborative function of regular team meetings; (3) the importance to patient care goals of having the varied disciplines practicing "under one roof"; (4) a universal commitment to understanding and treating patients as whole persons; and (5) a shared philosophy of helping patients to help themselves. These key themes are all interconnected and form the foundation of the clinic's culture. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative findings provide context for current trends in enhancing patient-centered, coordinated, and team-based care; efforts towards better understanding interprofessional communication; overcoming barriers to successful collaboration; and identifying best practices for fostering clinical teamwork and a strong team identity. Our findings also support the need for further qualitative research, in combination with quantitative research, for evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of resource-intensive integrative models for the treatment of chronic conditions.

A model of integrative care for low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES: While previous studies focused on the effectiveness of individual complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies, the value of providing patients access to an integrated program involving multiple CAM and conventional therapies remains unknown. The objective of this study is to explore the feasibility and effects of a model of multidisciplinary integrative care for subacute low-back pain (LBP) in an academic teaching hospital. DESIGN: This was a pilot randomized trial comparing an individualized program of integrative care (IC) plus usual care to usual care (UC) alone for adults with LBP. SUBJECTS: Twenty (20) individuals with LPB of 3-12 weeks' duration were recruited from an occupational health clinic and community health center. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to 12 weeks of individualized IC plus usual care versus UC alone. IC was provided by a trained multidisciplinary team offering CAM therapies and conventional medical care. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were symptoms (pain, bothersomeness), functional status (Roland-Morris score), SF-12, worry, and difficulty performing three self-selected activities. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, participants in the IC group had a median of 12.0 visits (range 5-25). IC participants experienced significantly greater improvements at 12 weeks than those receiving UC alone in symptom bothersomeness (p=0.02) and pain (p=0.005), and showed greater improvement in functional status (p=0.08). Rates of improvement were greater for patients in IC than UC in functional status (p=0.02), bothersomeness (p=0.002), and pain scores (p=0.001). Secondary outcomes of self-selected most challenging activity, worry, and the SF-12 also showed improvement in the IC group at 12 weeks. These differences persisted at 26 weeks, but were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible for a multidisciplinary, outpatient IC team to deliver coordinated, individualized intervention to patients with subacute LBP. Results showed a promising trend for benefit of treating patients with persistent LBP with this IC model, and warrant evaluation in a full-scale study.