Leadership perspectives in multidisciplinary team meetings; observational assessment based on the ATLAS instrument in cancer care

Mapping cognitive biases in multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making for cancer care in Scotland: a cognitive ethnography study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The efficiency of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care hinges on facilitating clinicians' cognitive processes as they navigate complex and uncertain judgements during treatment planning. When systems and workflows are not designed to adequately support human judgement and decision-making, even experts are prone to fallible reasoning due to cognitive biases. Incomplete integration of information or biased interpretations of patient data can lead to clinical errors and delays in the implementation of treatment recommendations. Though their impact is intuitively recognised, there is currently a paucity of empirical work on cognitive biases in MDT decision-making. Our study aims to explicate the impact of such biases on treatment planning and establish a foundation for targeted investigations and interventions to mitigate their negative effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a qualitative, observational study. We employ cognitive ethnography, informed by the Distributed Cognition for Teamwork framework to assess and evaluate MDT decision-making processes. The study involves in-person and virtual field observations of hepatopancreaticobiliary and upper gastrointestinal MDTs and interviews with their members over several months. The data generated will be analysed in a hybrid inductive/deductive fashion to develop a comprehensive map of potential cognitive biases in MDT decision processes identifying antecedents and risk factors of suboptimal treatment planning processes. Further, we will identify components of the MDT environment that can be redesigned to support decision-making via development of an MDT workspace evaluation tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has received management and ethical approvals from NHS Lothian Research and Development (2023/0245) and the University of Edinburgh Medical School ethical review committee (23-EMREC-049). Findings will be shared with participating MDTs and disseminated via a PhD thesis, international conference presentations and relevant scientific journals.

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

Multidisciplinary team meetings in Hematology: a national mixed-methods study

Multidisciplinary team meetings are a current international practice in cancer care, but to date, few data exist on the specificity of its practice in hematology.In this manuscript, we present the result of the first national study, realized with quantitative and qualitative methods in France, which brings new insights in order to improve the collegial decision-making process.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects, and a specific focus on hematological particularities is warranted to truly improve process.Background Understanding the Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) process in different medical specialties facilitates the identification of core factors supporting effective MDTM work. Our mixed-methods study explores the participants' perceptions of hematology MDTMs.Design Online questionnaires collected data concerning the decision-making process, benefits and inconveniences of MDTMs for both patients and professionals. Semi-directive phone interviews were conducted and analyzed, thereby supplying qualitative data.Results A total of 205 professionals responded to the questionnaire and 22 participated in the qualitative interviews. The data indicate the unique characteristics of hematology, including a specific definition of collegiality, the frequent solicitation of expert advice and the anticipation of treatment even prior to the occurrence of MDTMs. Additional information concerning patients' wishes and psychosocial conditions are also needed. Participants emphasize the subjective aspects and the impact of the climate of MDTMs on medical decisions.Conclusion Although MDTMs are recognized to be a valuable tool, organizational and relational issues may interfere with their efficiency.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects. A specific focus on hematological particularities might be warranted to truly improve the collegial decision-making process in the context of hematology.

Determining Contemporary Barriers to Effective Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Neurological Surgery: A Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The integration of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) for neurosurgical care has been accepted worldwide. Our objective was to review the literature for the limiting factors to MDTMs that may introduce bias to patient care.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis was used to perform a literature review of MDTMs for neuro-oncology, pituitary oncology, cerebrovascular surgery, and spine surgery and spine oncology. Limiting factors to productive MDTMs and factors that introduce bias were identified, as well as determining whether MDTMs led to improved patient outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 1264 manuscripts from a PubMed and Ovid Medline search, of which 27 of 500 neuro-oncology, 4 of 279 pituitary, and 11 of 260 spine surgery articles met our inclusion criteria. Of 224 cerebrovascular manuscripts, none met the criteria. Factors for productive MDTMs included quaternary/tertiary referral centers, nonhierarchical environment, regularly scheduled meetings, concise inclusion of nonmedical factors at the same level of importance as patient clinical information, inclusion of nonclinical participants, and use of clinical guidelines and institutional protocols to provide recommendations. Our review did not identify literature that described the use of artificial intelligence to reduce bias and guide clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

The continued implementation of MDTMs in neurosurgery should be recommended but cautioned by limiting bias.

Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) represent an integral component of modern cancer care and have increasingly been implemented to ensure accurate and evidence-based treatment recommendations. During MDTMs, multiple and complex medical and patient-related information should be considered by a multi-professional team whose members contribute various perspectives. Registered nurses (RNs) are expected to share information on the patient perspective at MDTMs. However, research suggests that RNs' contributions to case discussions are limited and that patient perspective is generally underrepresented. Our aim was to explore RNs' views of the prerequisites for and barriers to the inclusion of the patient perspective in MDTMs in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected from four focus group interviews with 22 RNs who worked as contact nurses in Swedish cancer care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified two categories and five subcategories. The participants presented different views and expressed ambivalence about the patient perspective in MDTMs. Subcategories were related to medical versus holistic perspectives, the added value of patient perspective, and possibilities for patient contributions. The participants also discussed prerequisites for the patient perspective to be considered in MDTM decision-making process, with subcategories related to structures promoting attention to the patient perspective and determinants of RNs' contributions to case discussions in MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates various views related to the patient perspective in MDTMs and identifies a great need to clarify the RN's role. Our results indicate that if enhanced presentation of the patient perspective in MDTMs is desired, key information points and structures must be established to collect and present relevant patient-related information.

Mapping Current Organizational Structure and Improvement Points of Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings - An Interview Study

Purpose

The aim of the study was to map current organization, and document potential improvement points of breast cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs), in order to support the optimization of the present breast cancer MDTM organization.

Methods

From January 2019 to February 2021, 24 core team members of the breast cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) in three hospitals were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were performed based on an interview guide. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive coding was performed on the transcripts by two independent researchers. The codes were organized in categories and themes.

Results

In total 24 healthcare professionals; surgeons, medical oncologists, radiotherapists, pathologists, radiologists, and specialized nurses, from three different hospitals were interviewed. According to the participants, improving efficiency before and during MDTMs is possible by ensuring proper preparation of attendees, implementing more structure during discussions, improving access to and availability of patient data and optimizing general meeting discipline.

Conclusion

Preparation, structure, data availability and meeting discipline were highlighted as essential factors for efficient breast cancer MDTM improvement. These topics seem to be applicable to other types of oncology MDTMs as well. Improving MDTM efficiency on the long term ensures high-quality discussions for all breast cancer patients.

Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review

Background

MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type.

Results

The search returned 7930 results. 18 studies were included. In total 7 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2 to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork.

Conclusions

Several tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.

Trial registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021234326.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09369-8.

Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer

To date, the virtual multidisciplinary tumor boards (vMTBs) are increasingly used to achieve high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MTB team to a regional or national expert network. This review describes the process of lung cancer-specific MTBs and the transition process from face-to-face tumor boards to virtual ones. The review also focuses on the project organization's description, advantages, and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews identified five major themes for MTBs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MTB. MTB teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Virtualization reduces time spent for travel, allowing easier and timely patient discussions. This process requires a secure web platform to assure the respect of patients' privacy and presents the same unanswered problems. The implementation of vMTB also permits the implementation of networks especially in areas with geographical barriers facilitating interaction between large referral cancer centers and tertiary or community hospitals as well as easier access to clinical trial opportunities. Studies aimed to improve preparations, structure, and conduct of MTBs, research methods to monitor their performance, teamwork, and outcomes are also outlined in this article. Analysis of literature shows that MTB participants discuss 5-8 cases per meeting and that the use of a vMTB for lung cancer and in particular stage III NSCLC and complex stage IV cases is widely accepted by most health professionals. Despite still-existing gaps, overall vMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management in a patient-centered approach.

Contributions to Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care: Predictors of Complete Case Information and Comprehensive Case Discussions

Purpose

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings integrate complex information and base recommendations for clinical management on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional decision-making. To support high-quality decision-making and define key performance indicators, we aimed to determine completeness of case information and contributions to MDT case discussions in cancer care.

Methods

In a prospective observational study design, based on three MDTs, we applied the Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (MODe) tool to assess the quality of case presentation and team members’ contributions to case discussions. The MDTs handled patients with brain tumors, soft tissue sarcomas and hepatobiliary cancers. The results were correlated to patient and team characteristics and to MDT leadership skills.

Results

Data were collected from 349 case discussions during 32 MDT meetings. Information on radiology received the highest scores, followed by case history and information on histopathology. Patient-related information was less frequently mentioned and generally received low scores. Contributions to the case discussions were predominantly by the chair, surgeons, and oncologists with limited contributions from nurses. Leadership skills showed a positive correlation with case presentations scores and failure to reach a treatment recommendation correlated with lower case discussion scores.

Conclusion

Considerable resources are spent on MDT meetings in cancer care, which motivate initiatives to ensure high-quality and efficient decision-making processes. We identify unbalanced contributions from team members during MDT meetings, demonstrate limited provision of patient-related information and show that leadership skills may positively influence the quality of the case presentations. We suggest that MDTs should consider and develop these aspects to ensure high-quality MDT-based case management and decision-making.