Background: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) models, such as stroke units, heart failure clinics, and integrated diabetes teams, are promoted to improve outcomes through coordinated, protocol‑driven, team‑based care. We systematically reviewed original studies evaluating MDC versus usual care and synthesized contemporary reviews to contextualize effects across conditions. Methods: Following PRISMA guidance, we searched and analyzed seven included studies supplied by the requester, spanning randomized trials and comparative cohorts in heart failure, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. Primary outcomes included mortality, hospitalization/readmission, functional status/quality of life, and cardiometabolic control. Data were extracted into structured tables and narratively synthesized. Results: In heart failure, two randomized trials showed fewer readmissions and improved quality of life and therapy optimization with MDC, with neutral short‑term mortality effects. In stroke, specialized stroke units consistently reduced length of stay and showed absolute reductions in in‑hospital case fatality in some settings; recent real‑world data reported shorter stays without mortality change. In diabetes, a recent randomized trial and a real‑world comparative study found improved HbA1c, lipids, treatment processes, and quality of life with multidisciplinary programs. Across studies, benefits clustered around utilization, risk‑factor control, adherence, and patient‑reported outcomes; mortality effects were mixed over short follow‑up. Conclusions: MDC improves key process and patient outcomes across conditions, especially readmissions, length of stay, quality of life, and cardiometabolic control; survival benefits vary by context and time horizon. Implementation fidelity and team composition likely modulate effect sizes. Further pragmatic trials with longer follow‑up are warranted.