Remote Collaborative Specialist Panel Deployment to Address Health Disparities in the RICH LIFE Project

Background and Objectives: Individuals with low income or from minoritized racial or ethnic groups experience a high burden of hypertension and other chronic conditions (eg, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and mental health conditions) and often lack access to specialist care when compared to their more socially advantaged counterparts. We used a mixed-methods approach to describe the deployment of a Remote Collaborative Specialist Panel intervention aimed at the comprehensive and coordinated management of patients with hypertension and comorbid conditions to address health disparities. Methods: Participants of the collaborative care/stepped care arm of the Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone (RICH LIFE) Project, a cluster-randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of enhanced standard of care to a multilevel intervention (collaborative care/ stepped care) for improving blood pressure control and reducing disparities, were included. Participants were eligible for referral by their care manager to the Specialist Panel if they continued to have poorly controlled hypertension or had uncontrolled comorbid conditions (eg, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, depression) after 3 months in the RICH LIFE trial. Referred participant cases were discussed remotely with a panel of specialists in internal medicine, cardiology, nephrology, endocrinology, and psychiatry. Qualitative data on the Specialist Panel recommendations and interviews with care managers to understand barriers and facilitators to the intervention were collected. We used available components of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to examine the impact of the intervention. Results: Of 302 participants in the relevant RICH LIFE arm who were potentially eligible for the Specialist Panel, 19 (6.3%) were referred. The majority were women (53%) and of Black race (84%). Referral reasons included uncontrolled blood pressure, diabetes, and other concerns (eg, chronic kidney disease, life-stressors, medication side effects, and medication nonadherence). Panel recommendations centered on guideline-recommended diagnostic and management algorithms, minimizing intolerable medication side effects and costs, and recommendations for additional referrals. Panel utilization was limited. Barriers reported by care managers were lack of perceived need by clinicians due to redundant specialists, a cumbersome referral process, the remote nature of the panel, and the sensitivity of relaying recommendations back to the primary care physician. Care managers who made panel referrals reported it was overwhelmingly valuable. Conclusion: The use of a Remote Collaborative Specialist Panel was limited but well-received by referring clinicians. With modifications to enhance uptake, the Remote Collaborative Specialist Panel may be a practical care model for addressing some disparities in hypertension and multi-morbidity care.