Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
3000 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-03-06
2029-07-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Evaluating Quality and Value of US Ambulatory Care Delivered Among Medicaid Expansion/Non-Expansion States, 2012-2015
NCT05319743
Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Uptake
NCT06996366
Addressing Vaccine Acceptance in Carceral Settings Through Community Engagement
NCT05796505
Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative
NCT02320591
Evaluation of a Supportive Housing Program for Adults Who Are Unhoused and Have Complex Health Needs
NCT06723093
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The first model is an example of a commonly implemented class of care coordination models that relies primarily on the use of care coordinators. The specific care coordinator (CC) model that is being studied - the Partners HealthCare Care Management Program (PHCMP) - was initially developed and studied by Partners HealthCare. In PHCMP, "high-risk" patients (defined primarily as ≥2 hospitalizations in the year before enrollment) have access to nurse care coordinators who seek to help manage the patient's care across the continuum. UCM's Medicare Shared Savings Plan Accountable Care Organization has recently implemented a model based on PHCMP that it calls the Ambulatory Care Coordination Team (ACCT). In ACCT, nurses and social workers provide proactive care coordination to "high-risk" patients. CC and ACCT are representative of common care coordination models implemented nationally. The fact that these models typically involve hiring additional staff and increase the number of hand-offs may explain why programs such as these have often failed to produce desired improvements in health outcomes or decreases in utilization.
The second model is a novel care delivery program called the Comprehensive Care Physician (CCP) program. The CCP model seeks to more effectively integrate inpatient and outpatient care for patients at increased risk of hospitalization by offering them care from the same physician in the inpatient and the outpatient settings so that these patients can benefit from the advantages of continuity in the doctor patient relationship. Since 2012, the investigators have developed and tested this model at UCM in a randomized trial funded by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation comparing CCP to standard care (SC) in which patients receive inpatient and outpatient care from different doctors and do not have access to care coordinators. The investigators enrolled 2,000 patients in this study, of whom \~90% are African American, with a median income of \~$20,000 per year and 1-year mortality rate of 15-20%. The results are striking: care ratings on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) measures correspond to the 95th percentile nationally for CCP patients vs. the 80th for SC, about 30% of CCP patients have a 1 point improvement in self-rated mental health status (e.g., from good to very good) compared to SC patients, hospitalizations are 20% lower over 1 year follow-up and 26% lower for CCP patients who experienced ≥2 hospitalizations in the year before enrollment. We think the efficacy of this model comes from the deep connection that the CCP team develops with patients, understanding thise patients as individuals and recognizing and beginning to address the deeper social determinants of their health.
The third model, the Comprehensive Care, Community and Culture Program (C4P), builds on the CCP program to better engage patients in their care. C4P was motivated by the finding that \~30% of patients who enrolled in the CCP program did not engage with it despite having expressed interest in the program and that a wide range of social factors might be barriers to their engagement. To better address social determinants of health, C4P builds on CCP by adding 1) systematic screening of 17 domains of unmet social needs, 2) access to a community health worker and 3) access to community-based arts and culture programming. Preliminary findings from a pilot of C4P indicate that unmet social needs are diverse, highly concentrated in a small number of patients and linked to each other, presenting barriers to addressing these needs. However, unmet needs were also found to cluster in ways that suggested actionable strategies to address needs more effectively. Early results suggest that C4P increases patient activation and engagement in care compared to CCP and SC.
While we have rigorously compared CCP to SC and performed a pilot study of C4P, CCP and SC at UCM, we have not compared CCP or C4P to the more commonly-used CC model, nor have we performed an adequately powered study comparing CCP and C4P. The rigorous findings comparing these models that we will generate are sorely needed by patients and health systems to inform choices about care coordination models, and particularly for socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals.
This study has 2 specific aims:
Aim 1: To compare the effect of 3 models of care on hospitalization (primary outcome) and patient activation, engagement in care, satisfaction, health outcomes and goal attainment over 1 year for patients at increased risk of hospitalization: 1) a care coordinator (CC) model in which patients receive inpatient and outpatient care from different physicians with access to care coordinator services for patients identified as at high risk of hospitalization, 2) the Comprehensive Care Physician (CCP) program in which patients at increased risk of hospitalization can receive inpatient and outpatient care from the same physician and 3) the Comprehensive Care, Community and Culture Program(C4P), which enhances CCP care with systematic screening for unmet social needs, access to a community health worker and access to programming to better engage patients and address their unmet social needs.
Aim 2: To determine whether the effects of the 3 models differ based on the number of hospitalizations that a patient has experienced in the year before entering these models of care.
Study Description: This study is a randomized clinical trial that compares 3 approaches to care for patients at increased risk of hospitalization: 1) ACCT in which patients receive inpatient and outpatient care from different doctors with the option to receive care from UCM physicians and care coordination from nurses and social workers who manage their care with the larger clinical team, 2) CCP in which patients receive care from the same UCM physician in the inpatient and outpatient settings and 3) C4P in which patients receive care from a CCP in addition to systematic screening of unmet social needs and access to a community health worker and community based arts and culture programming. Patients are insured by Medicare or Medicare and Medicaid, be at increased risk of hospitalization based on a history of prior hospitalization or emergency department use and be recruited from mixed, but predominantly low-income communities on Chicago's South Side. A total of 3,000 patients will be recruited, with 1,000 patients in the ACCT, CCP and C4P arms. The primary outcome is hospitalization because of its importance to both patients and health systems. Our primary measure of hospitalization is the number of hospitalizations over 1 year measured in Medicare claims data. Other outcomes are patient activation and engagement in care (measured using the Patient Activation Measure and the rate of completion of primary care visits), satisfaction with care (measured using HCAHPS scores), self-rated general and mental health status, and goal attainment.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Ambulatory Care Coordinator Team (ACCT)
Patients randomized to ACCT receive care from different doctors in clinic and in the hospital. ACCT patients who have been hospitalized twice, had 4 emergency department (ED) visits in the last year or are referred by their primary care physician are offered ACCT care coordination services (ACCT-CC) from nurses and social workers who manage their care with the larger clinical team. Patients are graduated from ACCT if the ACCT team thinks they are no longer high risk.
Ambulatory Care Coordinator Team (ACCT)
See arm description
Comprehensive Care Physician (CCP)
Patients randomized to the CCP group are assigned to a Comprehensive Care Physician and are asked to see their assigned CCP for their primary care. The patients receive their care from the same CCP in the outpatient clinic and also if they were to be hospitalized.
Comprehensive Care Physician Program (CCP)
see arm description
Comprehensive Care, Community & Culture Program (C4P)
Patients randomized to C4P receive care from a CCP in both the hospital and the clinic as well as the following: 1) systematic screening of 17 domains of unmet social needs, 2) access to a community health worker and 3) access to community-based arts and culture programming.
Comprehensive Care Community & Culture Program (C4P)
see arm description
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Ambulatory Care Coordinator Team (ACCT)
See arm description
Comprehensive Care Physician Program (CCP)
see arm description
Comprehensive Care Community & Culture Program (C4P)
see arm description
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Must have been hospitalized once in the past 2 years or be in emergency department at time recruitment is initiated
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
OTHER
University of Chicago
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
David Meltzer
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Gier NM, Maurer RR, Tang JW. Clinician experiences in a DBT-informed consultation group embedded within a US academic primary care clinic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2025 Oct 27;15(10):e100967. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100967.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
IRB-16-0391
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.