Teamwork and Team Decision-making at Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences: Barriers, Facilitators, and Opportunities for Improvement

[Evidence based tailoring of cancer care for older patients]

Cancer is a disease that disproportionately affects the elderly. Evidence-based treatment is the golden standard of current medical care, and this is also true for older cancer patients. In developing guidelines, all available evidence is collected, appraised and summarized. Subsequent recommendations are then translate to criteria used to judge the quality of care. The heterogeneity of the elderly population requires tailoring of care, which is the opposite of the often strictly formulated treatment recommendations in guidelines and protocols. This paper discusses several issues regarding evidence based treatment versus tailored care for older cancer patients.

Exploring team working and shared leadership in multi-disciplinary cancer care

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of shared leadership to multi-disciplinary cancer care. It examines the policy background and applies concepts from shared leadership to this context. It includes discussion of the implications and recommendations. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper examining policy documents and secondary literature on the topic. While it focuses on the UK National Health Services, it is also relevant to other countries given they follow a broadly similar path with regard to multi-disciplinary working. Findings The paper suggests that shared leadership is a possible way forward for multi-disciplinary cancer care, particularly as policy developments are supportive of this. It shows that a shared perspective is likely to be beneficial to the further development of multi-disciplinary working. Research limitations/implications Adopting shared leadership needs to be explored further using appropriate empirical research. Practical implications The paper offers comments on the implications of introducing shared leadership and makes recommendations including being aware of the barriers to its implementation. Originality/value The paper offers an alternative view on leadership in the health-care context.

Implementing a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board in the Community Practice Setting

Multidisciplinary tumor boards are an opportunity for radiologists to demonstrate value to referring clinicians, the hospital, and patients. Multidisciplinary tumor boards are commonly utilized in academic institutions, but may not be readily available in community practice. We discuss strategies academic radiologists may employ to assist in the implementation of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the community practice setting. Summary: Strategies to assist in the implementation of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the community practice setting are described.

The Experiences of Specialist Nurses Working Within the Uro-oncology Multidisciplinary Team in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE

United Kingdom prostate cancer nursing care is provided by a variety of urology and uro-oncology nurses. The experience of working in multidisciplinary teams (MDT) was investigated in a national study.

DESIGN

The study consisted of a national survey with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a data subset from a UK whole population survey was undertaken (n = 285) of the specialist nursing workforce and the services they provide. Data were collected on the experience of working in the MDT.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent of the respondents felt that they worked in a functional MDT, 12% felt that they worked in a dysfunctional MDT, and 3.5% found the MDT meeting intimidating. Furthermore, 34% of the nurses felt that they could constructively challenge all members of the MDT in meetings. Themes emerging from open-ended questions were lack of interest in nonmedical concerns by other team members, ability to constructively challenge decisions or views within the meeting, and little opportunity for patients' wishes to be expressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite expertise and experience, nurses had a variable, often negative, experience of the MDT. It is necessary to ensure that all participants can contribute and are heard and valued. More emphasis should be given to patients' nonmedical needs.

Lung Cancer in the Oldest Old: A Nation-Wide Study in The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

An important step in improving research and care for the oldest patients with lung cancer is analyzing current data regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment choices, and survival.

METHODS

We analyzed data on lung cancer from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR-IKNL) regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment, and survival in different age categories; the oldest old (≥85 years of age) versus those aged 71-84 (elderly) and those aged ≤70 years (younger patients).

RESULTS

47,951 patients were included in the 2010-2014 NCR database. 2196 (5%) patients were aged ≥85 years. Histological diagnosis was obtained significantly less often in the oldest old (38%, p < 0.001), and less standard treatment regimen was given (8%, p < 0.001) compared to elderly and younger patients. 67% of the oldest old received best supportive care only versus 38% of the elderly and 20% of the younger patients (p < 0.001). For the oldest old receiving standard treatment, survival rates were similar in comparison with the elderly patients. In the oldest old, no survival differences were found when comparing standard or adjusted regimens for stage I and IV NSCLC; for stage III, oldest old receiving standard treatment had longer survival. No oldest old patients with stage II received standard treatment.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians make limited use of diagnostics and invasive treatment in the oldest old; however, selected oldest old patients experienced similar survival rates as the elderly when receiving some form of anticancer therapy (standard or adjusted). More research is needed to further develop individualized treatment algorithms.

Moving Toward Improved Teamwork in Cancer Care: The Role of Psychological Safety in Team Communication

Effective communication is a requirement in the teamwork necessary for improved coordination to deliver patient-centered, value-based cancer care. Communication is particularly important when care providers are geographically distributed or work across organizations. We review organizational and teams research on communication to highlight psychological safety as a key determinant of high-quality communication within teams. We first present the concept of psychological safety, findings about its communication effects for teamwork, and factors that affect it. We focus on five factors applicable to cancer care delivery: familiarity, clinical hierarchy–related status differences, geographic dispersion, boundary spanning, and leader behavior. To illustrate how these factors facilitate or hinder psychologically safe communication and teamwork in cancer care, we review the case of a patient as she experiences the treatment-planning process for early-stage breast cancer in a community setting. Our analysis is summarized in a key principle: Teamwork in cancer care requires high-quality communication, which depends on psychological safety for all team members, clinicians and patients alike. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of psychological safety in clinical care and suggestions for future research.

Predictors of Treatment Decisions in Multidisciplinary Oncology Meetings: A Quantitative Observational Study

BACKGROUND

In many healthcare systems, treatment recommendations for cancer patients are formulated by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Evidence suggests that interdisciplinary contributions to case reviews in the meetings are unequal and information-sharing suboptimal, with biomedical information dominating over information on patient comorbidities and psychosocial factors. This study aimed to evaluate how different elements of the decision process affect the teams' ability to reach a decision on first case review.

METHODS

This was an observational quantitative assessment of 1045 case reviews from 2010 to 2014 in cancer MTBs using a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making. This tool allows evaluation of the quality of information presentation (case history, radiological, pathological, and psychosocial information, comorbidities, and patient views), and contribution to discussion by individual core specialties (surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and specialist cancer nurses). The teams' ability to reach a decision was a dichotomous outcome variable (yes/no).

RESULTS

Using multiple logistic regression analysis, the significant positive predictors of the teams' ability to reach a decision were patient psychosocial information (odds ratio [OR] 1.35) and the inputs of surgeons (OR 1.62), radiologists (OR 1.48), pathologists (OR 1.23), and oncologists (OR 1.13). The significant negative predictors were patient comorbidity information (OR 0.83) and nursing inputs (OR 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary inputs into case reviews and patient psychosocial information stimulate decision making, thereby reinforcing the role of MTBs in cancer care in processing such information. Information on patients' comorbidities, as well as nursing inputs, make decision making harder, possibly indicating that a case is complex and requires more detailed review. Research should further define case complexity and determine ways to better integrate patient psychosocial information into decision making.

Development and testing of the cancer multidisciplinary team meeting observational tool (MDT-MOT)

OBJECTIVE

To develop a tool for independent observational assessment of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs), and test criterion validity, inter-rater reliability/agreement and describe performance.

DESIGN

Clinicians and experts in teamwork used a mixed-methods approach to develop and refine the tool. Study 1 observers rated pre-determined optimal/sub-optimal MDM film excerpts and Study 2 observers independently rated video-recordings of 10 MDMs.

SETTING

Study 2 included 10 cancer MDMs in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Testing was undertaken by 13 health service staff and a clinical and non-clinical observer.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tool development, validity, reliability/agreement and variability in MDT performance.

RESULTS

Study 1: Observers were able to discriminate between optimal and sub-optimal MDM performance (P ≤ 0.05). Study 2: Inter-rater reliability was good for 3/10 domains. Percentage of absolute agreement was high (≥80%) for 4/10 domains and percentage agreement within 1 point was high for 9/10 domains. Four MDTs performed well (scored 3+ in at least 8/10 domains), 5 MDTs performed well in 6-7 domains and 1 MDT performed well in only 4 domains. Leadership and chairing of the meeting, the organization and administration of the meeting, and clinical decision-making processes all varied significantly between MDMs (P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

MDT-MOT demonstrated good criterion validity. Agreement between clinical and non-clinical observers (within one point on the scale) was high but this was inconsistent with reliability coefficients and warrants further investigation. If further validated MDT-MOT might provide a useful mechanism for the routine assessment of MDMs by the local workforce to drive improvements in MDT performance.

The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Conducting regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings requires significant investment of time and finances. It is thus important to assess the empirical benefits of such practice. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of MDT meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from 1995 to April 2015, using the keywords: multidisciplinary team meeting* OR multidisciplinary discussion* OR multidisciplinary conference* OR case review meeting* OR multidisciplinary care forum* OR multidisciplinary tumour board* OR case conference* OR case discussion* AND oncology OR cancer. Studies were included if they assessed measurable outcomes, and used a comparison group and/or a pre- and post-test design.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. There was limited evidence for improved survival outcomes of patients discussed at MDT meetings. Between 4% and 45% of patients discussed at MDT meetings experienced changes in diagnostic reports following the meeting. Patients discussed at MDT meetings were more likely to receive more accurate and complete pre-operative staging, and neo-adjuvant/adjuvant treatment. Quality of studies was affected by selection bias and the use of historical cohorts impacted study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings impact upon patient assessment and management practices. However, there was little evidence indicating that MDT meetings resulted in improvements in clinical outcomes. Future research should assess the impact of MDT meetings on patient satisfaction and quality of life, as well as, rates of cross-referral between disciplines.

Consideration of comorbidity in treatment decision making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity is very common among patients with cancer. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are increasingly the context within which cancer treatment decisions are made internationally. Little is known about how comorbidity is considered, or impacts decisions, in MDTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate previous evidence on consideration, and impact, of comorbidity in cancer MDT treatment decision making. Twenty-one original studies were included.

RESULTS

Lack of information on comorbidity in MDTs impedes the ability of MDT members to make treatment recommendations, and for those recommendations to be implemented among patients with comorbidity. Where treatment is different from that recommended due to comorbidity, it is more conservative, despite evidence that such treatment may be tolerated and effective. MDT members are likely to be unaware of the extent to which issues such as comorbidity are ignored.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTs should systematically consider treatment of patients with comorbidity. Further research is needed to assist clinicians to undertake MDT decision making that appropriately addresses comorbidity. If this were to occur, it would likely contribute to improved outcomes for cancer patients with comorbidities.

"We talk it over"--mixed-method study of interdisciplinary collaborations in private practice among urologists and oncologists in Germany

BACKGROUND

Utilisation of multidisciplinary teams is considered the best approach to care and treatment for cancer patients. However, the multidisciplinary approach has mainly focused on inpatient care rather than routine outpatient care. The situation in private practice care and outpatient care is gradually changing. We aimed to 1), investigate interdisciplinary cooperations in the care of tumor patients among urologists and oncologists in the community setting, 2), establish an estimate of the prevalence of cooperation among oncologists and organ-specific providers in community settings in Germany and 3), characterise existing cooperations among oncologists and urologists.

METHODS

We conducted simultaneously a cross-sectional survey with private practice urologists (n=1,925) and a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews with urologists and oncologists (n=42), primarily with private practices, who had indicated cooperation the care of urological tumor patients.

RESULTS

Most of the participants (66%) treated their own tumor patients. When physicians referred patients, they did so for co- and subsequent treatments (43%). Most cooperating urologists were satisfied with the partnership and appreciated the competency of their partners. Qualitative interviews revealed two types of collaboration in the community setting: formal and informal. Collaborations were usually ongoing with many physicians and depended equally on both patient preference and diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Joint patient treatment requires clear delineation of roles and responsibilities and simple means of communication. Formal frameworks should allow for incorporation of patients' critical role in collaboration decisions in treatment and care.

Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study

Background

The prevalence of multidisciplinary teams (MDT) for the delivery of cancer care is increasing globally. Evidence exists of benefits to patients and healthcare professionals. However, MDT working is time and resource intensive. This study aims to explore members’ views on existing practices of urology MDT working, and to identify potential interventions for improving the efficiency and productivity of the MDT meeting.

Methods

Members of urology MDTs across the UK were purposively recruited to participate in an online survey. Survey items included questions about the utility and efficiency of MDT meetings, and strategies for improving the efficiency of MDT meetings: treating cases by protocol, prioritising cases, and splitting the MDT into subspeciality meetings.

Results

173 MDT members participated (Oncologists n = 77, Cancer Nurses n = 54, Urologists n = 30, other specialities n = 12). 68% of respondents reported that attending the MDT meeting improves efficiency in care through improved clinical decisions, planning investigations, helping when discussing plans with patients, speciality referrals, documentation/patient records. Participants agreed that some cases including low risk, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and localised, low-grade prostate cancer could be managed by pre-agreed pathways, without full MDT review. There was a consensus that cases at the MDT meeting could be prioritised by complexity, tumour type, or the availability of MDT members. Splitting the MDT meeting was unpopular: potential disadvantages included loss of efficiency, loss of team approach, unavailability of members and increased administrative work.

Conclusion

Key urology MDT members find the MDT meeting useful. Improvements in efficiency and effectiveness may be possible by prioritising cases or managing some low-risk cases according to previously agreed protocols. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of such strategies on MDT meetings, cancer care pathways and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Using peer observers to assess the quality of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative proof of concept study

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) working is well established as the foundation for providing cancer services in the UK and elsewhere. A core activity is the weekly meeting (or case conference/tumor boards) where the treatment recommendations for individual patients are agreed. Evidence suggests that the quality of team working varies across cancer teams, and this may impact negatively on the decision-making process, and ultimately patient care. Feedback on performance by expert observers may improve performance, but can be resource-intensive to implement. This proof of concept study sought to: develop a structured observational assessment tool for use by peers (managers or clinicians from the local workforce) and explore its usability; assess the feasibility of the principle of observational assessment by peers; and explore the views of MDT members and observers about the utility of feedback from observational assessment.

Methods

For tool development, the content was informed by national clinical consensus recommendations for best practice in cancer MDTs and developed in collaboration with an expert steering group. It consisted of ten subdomains of team working observable in MDT meetings that were rated on a 10-point scale (very poor to very good). For observational assessment, a total of 19 peer observers used the tool (assessing performance in 20 cancer teams from four hospitals). For evaluation, telephone interviews with 64 team members and all peer observers were analyzed thematically.

Results

The tool was easy to use and areas for refinement were identified. Peer observers were identified and most indicated that undertaking observation was feasible. MDT members generally reported that observational assessment and feedback was useful, with the potential to facilitate improvements in team working.

Conclusion

This study suggests that observation and feedback by peers may provide a feasible and acceptable approach to enhance MDT performance. Further tool refinement and validation is required.

Case review in urology multidisciplinary team meetings: What members think of its functioning

Objective:

To improve communication and decision making between specialists, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) were introduced with the premise they would improve cancer care for patients. Minimal evidence exists on MDT functionality. We investigated MDT members’ views on barriers to optimal functioning and explored their suggestions for improvements.

Materials and methods:

Twenty urology MDT members from seven hospitals including surgeons, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and clinical nurse specialists took part in a semi-structured interview study. Interviews focused on information presentation, case discussion, factors affecting the multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) and potential improvements. Interviews were transcribed and analysed through emergent theme analysis.

Results:

Factors negatively influencing the MDMs included insufficient time to prepare cases so that enough information is available to make appropriate decisions; absence of the clinician in charge or not knowing the patient; and lack of a systematic approach to case discussion. Recommendations included protected time for case preparation, focusing on performance and comorbidities of the patient, standardising the MDT meeting and improving case selection.

Conclusions:

MDTs in urology have contributed to advances in cancer care but there is significant scope for further improvement. Implementing recommendations from team members on the front line may help drive quality in this sensitive domain.

Observational study of decision making concerning radiotherapy in rectal cancer

AIM

To understand how surgeons arrive at a decision in the complex and controversial field of radiotherapy in rectal cancer by identifying which variables are important in this decision and to assess the influence of age, training, area of practice and access to radiotherapy on decisions in this field.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was distributed to 150 members of the CSSANZ. They were asked to rank the importance of 33 variables considered when making decisions to use radiotherapy in the treatment of rectal cancer. The responses were assessed for association of surgeon age, area of practise or access to radiotherapy with decisions in this field.

RESULTS

A hierarchy of variables was produced which showed tumour characteristics had the highest average importance, higher than that attained by patient characteristics and side effects. There were subtle but statistically significant differences in the ranking of importance when surgeons were grouped by age, site of subspeciality training, site of practise and availability of radiotherapy service.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies a hierarchy of variables used in decision making concerning radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment, which may be used in heuristic decision making. Decisions on using radiotherapy are influenced by age, site of practise, site of training, and the presence of radiotherapy on site.

Multidisciplinary care team for cancer patients and its implementation in several Middle Eastern countries

This article introduces palliative care to cancer patients in Middle Eastern countries. It considers the importance of the multidisciplinary team in providing an adequate service to the patient and his/her family. It provides views of professionals from the various countries with regard to the role of the nurse in such teams; whereby the three elements of palliative care nursing entail: 1. Working directly with patients and families; 2. Working with other health and social care professionals to network and co-ordinate services; and 3. working at an organizational level to plan, develop and manage service provision in local, regional and national settings. This article also details the challenges that nurses face in the Middle East and outlines the preferable ways to overcome such challenges. The latter include more focused educational activities at the undergraduate and graduate levels and continuous clinical training throughout their work as palliative care nurse specialists.

Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective

BACKGROUND

It is becoming a standard practice worldwide for cancer patients to be discussed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT or 'tumour board') in order to formulate an expert-derived management plan. Evidence suggests that MDTs do not always work optimally in making clinical decisions and that not all MDT decisions get implemented into care. We investigated factors influencing decision-making and decision implementation in cancer MDTs.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with expert MDT members of Urological and Gastro-Intestinal tumours of 3 London (UK) hospitals. The standardised interview protocol assessed MDT experts' views on decision-making, barriers to reaching a decision and implementing it into care, and interventions to improve this process. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a standardised approach. Emergent themes were identified by 2 clinical coders and tabulated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants participated in the study and data collection achieved 'saturation' (i.e., similar themes raised by different participants). Barriers to clinical decision-making included: inadequate clinical information; lack of investigation results; non-attendance of key members; teleconferencing failures. Barriers to implementation of MDT recommendations included: non-consideration of patients' choices or co-morbidities; disease progression at the time of implementation. Proposed interventions included improving the information available for the discussion through a standardised proforma; improving video-conferencing; reducing the MDT caseload (e.g., via selective MDT review of certain patients); and including patients more in the decision process.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing drive to improve the clinical role of the MDT within cancer care. This study demonstrates the main barriers that MDTs face in deciding on and, importantly, implementing a management plan. Further research should prospectively evaluate interventions to enhance translation of MDT decision-making into cancer care and thus to expedite and improve care.

The cancer multi-disciplinary team from the coordinators' perspective: results from a national survey in the UK

Background

The MDT-Coordinators’ role is relatively new, and as such it is evolving. What is apparent is that the coordinator’s work is pivotal to the effectiveness and efficiency of an MDT. This study aimed to assess the views and needs of MDT-coordinators.

Methods

Views of MDT-coordinators were evaluated through an online survey that covered their current practice and role, MDT chairing, opinions on how to improve MDT meetings, and coordinators’ educational/training needs.

Results

265 coordinators responded to the survey. More than one third of the respondents felt that the job plan does not reflect their actual duties. It was reported that medical members of the MDT always contribute to case discussions. 66.9% of the respondents reported that the MDTs are chaired by Surgeons. The majority reported having training on data management and IT skills but more than 50% reported that they felt further training is needed in areas of Oncology, Anatomy and physiology, audit and research, peer-review, and leadership skills.

Conclusions

MDT-Coordinators’ role is central to the care of cancer patients. The study reveals areas of training requirements that remain unmet. Improving the resources and training available to MDT-coordinators can give them an opportunity to develop the required additional skills and contribute to improved MDT performance and ultimately cancer care. Finally, this study looks forward to the impact of the recent launch of a new e-learning training programme for MDT coordinators and discusses implications for future research.

Decision-making in oncology: a selected literature review and some recommendations for the future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decision-making in oncology is associated with uncertainty and potential decisional conflict. The purpose of this paper is to review strategies suggested to improve treatment decision-making, discuss their limits and describe recommendations that have been made to improve the decision-making process.

RECENT FINDINGS

To improve the decision-making process, uncertainty reduction, shared decision-making and multidisciplinary teamwork have been initially proposed. Due to their limits, alternative approaches such as uncertainty management, collaborative decision-making and collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork have been recommended. Uncertainty management considers uncertainty as a multilevel concept. It may be achieved through collaborative decision-making and collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork. Collaborative decision-making is an in-depth personalized iterative assessment of patient medical, psychological and social status. It promotes the patient's proactive role as a key stakeholder of decision-making and the physician's proactive role as a key support to patient decision-making. Collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork promotes an optimal environment for collaborative decision-making in which patients are key stakeholders and all relevant healthcare professionals are actively involved. These approaches require developing interventions for patients, and trainings for physicians and multidisciplinary teams.

SUMMARY

On the basis of these recent approaches, we propose a 'three-step model of multidisciplinary collaborative treatment decision-making' in oncology. This model should be tested for its validity.

Developing and testing TEAM (Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure), a self-assessment tool to improve cancer multidisciplinary teamwork

BACKGROUND

Cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are well established worldwide and are an expensive resource yet no standardised tools exist to measure performance. We aimed to develop and test an MDT self-assessment tool underpinned by literature review and consensus from over 2000 UK MDT members about the "characteristics of an effective MDT."

METHODS

Questionnaire items relating to all characteristics of MDTs (particularly Leadership and Chairing; Teamworking and Culture; Patient-centred care; Clinical decision-making process; and Organisation and administration during meetings) were developed by an expert panel. Acceptability, feasibility and psychometric properties were tested by online completion of the questionnaire by 23 MDTs from 4 UK NHS Trusts followed by interviews with 74 team members including members from all teams and nonresponders. 10 of the MDTs also completed questionnaires that directly translated each characteristic to an item (for the five domains above) to test content validity.

RESULTS

A total of 47 items were created, each rated for agreement on a 5-point scale. A total of 329 (52 %) of 637 team members completed the questionnaire, including representation from medical, nursing and clerical MDT members. Responses correlated well with domain-specific questionnaires (r > 0.67, p = 0.01), most domain-scales had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.60), and good item discrimination (majority of items r < 0.20). Team members were positive about its value.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-assessment of team performance using this tool may support MDT development.

Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach

Background

Cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are established in many countries but little is known about how well they function. A core activity is regular MDT meetings (MDMs) where treatment recommendations are agreed. A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted to develop and test quality criteria for observational assessment of MDM performance calibrated against consensus from over 2000 MDT members about the “characteristics of an effective MDT”.

Methods

Eighteen of the 86 ‘Characteristics of Effective MDTs’ were considered relevant and feasible to observe. They collated to 15 aspects of MDT working covering four domains: the team (e.g. attendance, chairing, teamworking); infrastructure for meetings (venue, equipment); meeting organisation and logistics; and patient-centred clinical decision-making (patient-centredness, clarity of recommendations). Criteria for rating each characteristic from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’ were derived from literature review, observing MDMs and expert input. Criteria were applied to 10 bowel cancer MDTs to assess acceptability and measure variation between and within teams. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing three observers.

Results

Observational assessment was acceptable to teams and feasible to implement. Total scores from 29 to 50 (out of 58) highlighted wide diversity in quality between teams. Eight teams were rated either ‘very good/good’ or ‘very poor/poor’ for at least three domains demonstrating some internal consistency. ‘Very good’ ratings were most likely for attendance and administrative preparation, and least likely for patient-centredness of decision-making and prioritisation of complex cases. All except two characteristics had intra-class correlations of ≥0.50.

Conclusions

This observational tool (MDT-OARS) may contribute to the assessment of MDT performance. Further testing to confirm validity and reliability is required.

Development and evaluation of a checklist to support decision making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: MDT-QuIC

BACKGROUND

The quality of decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings is variable, which can result in suboptimal clinical decision making. We developed MDT-QuIC, an evidence-based tool to support clinical decision making by MDTs, which was evaluated by key users.

METHODS

Following a literature review, factors important for high-quality clinical decision making were listed and then converted into a preliminary checklist by clinical and safety experts. Attitudes of MDT members toward the tool were evaluated via an online survey, before adjustments were made giving rise to a final version: MDT-QuIC.

RESULTS

The checklist was evaluated by 175 MDT members (surgeons = 38, oncologists = 40, specialist nurses = 62, and MDT coordinators = 35). Attitudes toward the checklist were generally positive (P < 0.001, 1-sample t test), although nurses were more positive than other groups regarding whether the checklist would improve their contribution in MDT meetings (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Participants thought that the checklist could be used to prepare cases for MDT meetings, to structure and guide case discussions, or as a record of MDT discussion. Regarding who could use the checklist, 70% thought it should be used by the MDT chair, 54% by the MDT coordinator, and 38% thought all MDT members should use it.

CONCLUSION

We have developed and validated an evidence-based tool to support the quality of MDT decision making. MDT members were positive about the checklist and felt it may help to structure discussion, improve inclusivity, and patient centeredness. Further research is needed to assess its effect on patient care and outcomes.