The impact of Clinical Nurse Specialists on the decision making process in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study

Examining the Role of Stress and Team Support in Decision Making under Uncertainty and Time Pressure

Background. Previous research has examined the individual effects of uncertainty, time pressure, perceived stress, and team support on decision making. However, scant research has investigated how team support and perceived stress collectively influence providers' perception of decision conflict and satisfaction with decision. Objectives. The present study aims to fill this void by examining the potential mediating role of perceived stress and team support in the relationship between time pressure, uncertainty, decision satisfaction, and decision conflict. Methods. Obstetrics and gynecology (Obs and Gynae) physicians (N = 347) working in tertiary care hospitals were approached through snowball and purposive convenient sampling. Self-reported data were collected in the form of questionnaires. Results. Structural equation modeling was used to uncover the complex linkages. Perceived stress was found to be a significant mediator between uncertainty and decision conflict (b = -0.033, P < 0.05). In addition, team support was also found to be a significant mediator between uncertainty and decision satisfaction (b = 0.082, P < 0.05) as well as between time pressure and decision satisfaction (b = 0.086, P < 0.05). Conclusion. Team support acts as a bridge between uncertainty and decision satisfaction and also between time pressure and decision satisfaction, underscoring its critical role in provider perceptions of decision making in the Obs and Gynae context. Implications. This study highlights the significance of managing stress, enhancing team support, and giving priority to patient-centered care. These findings provide insights into risk and uncertainty management in medical decision making, advancing patient-centered care, and optimizing health care outcomes.

Highlights

Stressors in hospital settings such as the complexity and uncertainty of tasks create stress among physicians, potentially leading to decision conflicts.Team support plays a fundamental role in mitigating the negative effects of stressors such as time pressure and uncertainty.Implementing stress management and team support interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness may enhance decision making among Obs and Gynae physicians.

Starting a career in research nursing during a global pandemic

In the spring of 2020, two nurses (KR and AJ) commenced their research nurse careers amid the SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. This reflective article discusses their experiences of beginning a clinical research nursing career, presented as a case study of their learning journey, rather than detailing the randomised controlled trial they delivered via GP practices. The main study compared standard care to nurse-led management of irritable bowel syndrome, the details of which will be published separately. The article identifies three overarching concepts: 'Green as grass, keen as mustard', 'Spires and steeples', and 'Down the rabbit hole'. The article offers insight from the two nurses for other professionals contemplating a career in research.

Collaborative clinical reasoning: a scoping review

Background

Collaborative clinical reasoning (CCR) among healthcare professionals is crucial for maximizing clinical outcomes and patient safety. This scoping review explores CCR to address the gap in understanding its definition, structure, and implications.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken to examine CCR related studies in healthcare. Medline, PsychInfo, SciVerse Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criteria included full-text articles published between 2011 to 2020. Search terms included cooperative, collaborative, shared, team, collective, reasoning, problem solving, decision making, combined with clinical or medicine or medical, but excluded shared decision making.

Results

A total of 24 articles were identified in the review. The review reveals a growing interest in CCR, with 14 articles emphasizing the decision-making process, five using Multidisciplinary Team-Metric for the Observation of Decision Making (MDTs-MODe), three exploring CCR theory, and two focusing on the problem-solving process. Communication, trust, and team dynamics emerge as key influencers in healthcare decision-making. Notably, only two articles provide specific CCR definitions.

Conclusions

While decision-making processes dominate CCR studies, a notable gap exists in defining and structuring CCR. Explicit theoretical frameworks, such as those proposed by Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al., are crucial for advancing research and understanding CCR dynamics within collaborative teams. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of CCR research, revealing a growing interest and diversity in the field. The review emphasizes the need for explicit theoretical frameworks, citing Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al. The broader landscape of interprofessional collaboration and clinical reasoning requires exploration.

Facilitators and barriers to conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological multidisciplinary team meeting

BACKGROUND

Optimal oncological care nowadays requires discussing every patient in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). The number of patients to be discussed is rising rapidly due to the increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer and the emergence of new multidisciplinary treatment options. This puts MDTMs under considerable time pressure. The aim of this study is therefore to identify the facilitators and barriers with regard to performing an efficient, competent and high-quality MDTM.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with Dutch medical specialists and residents participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' professional and demographic characteristics (eg, sex, medical specialist vs resident, specialty, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen medical specialists and 19 residents were interviewed. All interviewees agreed that attending and preparing MDTMs is time-consuming and indicated the need for optimal execution in order to ensure that MDTMs remain feasible in the near future. Four themes emerged that are relevant to achieving an optimal MDTM: (1) organisational aspects; (2) participants' responsibilities and requirements; (3) competences, behaviour and team dynamics and (4) meeting content. Good organisation, a sound structure and functioning information and communication technology facilitate high-quality MDTMs. Multidisciplinary collaboration and adequate communication are essential competences for participants; a lack thereof and the existence of a hierarchy are hindering factors.

CONCLUSION

Conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological MDTM is facilitated and hindered by many factors. Being aware of these factors provides opportunities for optimising MDTMs, which are under pressure due to the increase in the number of patients to discuss.

Dynamics and processes influencing role integration of advanced practice nurses and nurse navigators in oncology teams

PURPOSE

Exploring the persisting presence of underlying processes, dynamics, experienced barriers and facilitators of Advanced Practice Nurses (APN) in oncology and Oncology Nurse Navigators (ONN) during their role integration in an interprofessional team over a research period of seven years.

METHODS

A qualitative study based on the principles of Grounded Theory, in which individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 51 ONN and APN from 11 university and local hospitals in Belgium between 2011-2018. Data were analyzed to develop a framework that consists of different themes.

RESULTS

ONN and APN experienced a lonely journey during role integration. They were searching for partners, medical knowledge and acknowledgement from the interprofessional team. ONN and APN had a watchful attitude and tried to make themselves visible to ensure they were involved in the team and to preserve their role and responsibilities. An unclear role description to the interprofessional team, and a lack of coaching and guidance were influencing factors in the experience of ONN and APN.

CONCLUSION

ONN and APN in oncology feel difficulties to integrate their role in existing interprofessional teams. A lack of role clarity, the interprofessional team environment and a desire for coaching and guidance are influencing factors to implement APN roles. Coaching and mentorship of novice ONN/APN and their interprofessional team and healthcare managers are needed to address these issues. These findings could form the basis for a mentorship program for ONN/APN and their interprofessional team to enhance role integration.

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.

Preparing tomorrow's medical specialists for participating in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: perceived barriers, facilitators and training needs

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment plan for patients with cancer is discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Effective meetings require all participants to have collaboration and communication competences. Participating residents (defined as qualified doctors in training to become a specialist) are expected to develop these competences by observing their supervisors. However, the current generation of medical specialists is not trained to work in multidisciplinary teams; currently, training mainly focuses on medical competences. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among residents with respect to learning how to participate competently in MDTMs, and to identify additional training needs regarding their future role in MDTMs, as perceived by residents and specialists.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch residents and medical specialists participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' demographic and professional characteristics (e.g. sex, specialty, training duration, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen residents and 16 specialists were interviewed. Three themes emerged: 1) awareness of the educational function of MDTMs among specialists and residents; 2) characteristics of MDTMs (e.g. time constraints, MDTM regulations) and 3) team dynamics and behaviour. Learning to participate in MDTMs is facilitated by: specialists and residents acknowledging the educational function of MDTMs beyond their medical content, and supervisors fulfilling their teaching role and setting conditions that enable residents to take a participative role (e.g. being well prepared, sitting in the inner circle, having assigned responsibilities). Barriers to residents' MDTM participation were insufficient guidance by their supervisors, time constraints, regulations hindering their active participation, a hierarchical structure of relations, unfamiliarity with the team and personal characteristics of residents (e.g. lack of confidence and shyness). Interviewees indicated a need for additional training (e.g. simulations) for residents, especially to enhance behavioural and communication skills.

CONCLUSION

Current practice with regard to preparing residents for their future role in MDTMs is hampered by a variety of factors. Most importantly, more awareness of the educational purposes of MDTMs among both residents and medical specialists would allow residents to participate in and learn from oncological MDTMs. Future studies should focus on collaboration competences.

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review

Background

Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs’ efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01–01-1990 to 09–11-2021), using different descriptions of ‘MDTM’ and ‘neoplasm’ as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author.

Results

Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs.

Conclusions

MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08112-0.

Exploring the role of the nutrition nurse specialist in an intestinal failure tertiary referral centre

The role of the nutrition nurse specialist (NNS) is diverse and is usually integral to a wider, multidisciplinary nutrition support team (NST). Practice frameworks have been developed to identify competencies within the NNS role. A mind-mapping technique was used with the NNS team and the wider NST to explore the role of the NNS in the authors' intestinal failure tertiary referral centre. The results of this were further compared with the published competency frameworks. The mind maps from the NNS team and NST demonstrated commonality. It was encouraging to see that colleagues seem to have a similar understanding of the NNS role and contribution to the wider service. Published competency frameworks did not entirely reflect the expanded scope of practice that is undertaken within this particular team. It is important for clinical nurse specialist teams to evaluate their role and service provision and to compare this against published competency frameworks.

Exploring non-physician care professionals' roles in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study

The growing complexity of cancer care necessitates collaboration among different professionals. This interprofessional collaboration improves cancer care delivery and outcomes. Treatment decision-making within the context of a multidisciplinaire team meeting (MDTMs) may be seen as a particular form of interprofessional collaboration. Various studies on cancer MDTMs highlight a pattern of suboptimal information sharing between attendants. To overcome the lack of non-medical, patient-based information, it might be recommended that non-physician care professionals play a key patient advocacy role within cancer MDTMs. This study aims to explore non-physician care professionals' current and aspired role within cancer MDTMs. Additionally, the perceived hindering factors for these non-physician care professionals to fulfil their specific role are identified. The analysis focuses on nurses, specialist nurses, head nurses, psychologists, social workers, a head of social workers and data managers. The results show that non-physician care professionals play a limited role during case discussions in MDTMs. Neither do they actively participate in the decision-making process. Barriers perceived by non-physician care professionals are classified on two main levels: 1) team-related barriers (factors internally related to the team) and 2) external barriers (factors related to healthcare management and policy). A group of non-physician care professionals also belief that their information does not add value in the decision-making proces and as such, they underestimate their own role in MDTMs. To conclude, a change of culture is needed towards an interdisciplinary collaboration in which knowledge and expertise of different professions are equally assimilated into an integrated perspective to guarantee a true patient-centred approach for cancer MDTMs.

Multidisciplinary decision-making in older patients with cancer, does it differ from younger patients?

BACKGROUND

In order to tailor treatment to the individual patient, it is important to take the patients context and preferences into account, especially for older patients. We assessed the quality of information used in the decision-making process in different oncological MDTs and compared this for older (≥70 years) and younger patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional observations of oncological MDTs were performed, using an observation tool in a University Hospital. Primary outcome measures were quality of input of information into the discussion for older and younger patients. Secondary outcomes were the contribution of different team members, discussion time for each case and whether or not a treatment decision was formulated.

RESULTS

Five-hundred and three cases were observed. The median patient age was 63 year, 32% were ≥70. In both age groups quality of patient-centered information (psychosocial information and patient's view) was poor. There was no difference in quality of information between older and younger patients, only for comorbidities the quality of information for older patients was better. There was no significant difference in the contributions by team members, discussion time (median 3.54 min) or number of decision reached (87.5%).

CONCLUSION

For both age groups, we observed a lack of patient-centered information. The only difference between the age groups was for information on comorbidities. There were also no differences in contributions by different team members, case discussion time or number of decisions. Decision-making in the observed oncological MDTs was mostly based on medical technical information.