A snapshot of MDT working and patient mapping in the UK colorectal cancer centres in 2002

A systematic review of colorectal multidisciplinary team meetings: an international comparison

Background

Colorectal multidisciplinary teams (CR MDTs) were introduced to enhance the cancer care pathway and allow for early investigation and treatment of cancer. However, there are no ‘gold standards’ set for this process. The aim of this study was to review the literature systematically and provide a qualitative analysis on the principles, organization, structure and output of CR MDTs internationally.

Methods

Literature on the role of CR MDTs published between January 1999 and March 2020 in the UK, USA and continental Europe was evaluated. Historical background, structure, core members, education, frequency, patient-selection criteria, quality assurance, clinical output and outcomes were extracted from data from the UK, USA and continental Europe.

Results

Forty-eight studies were identified that specifically met the inclusion criteria. The majority of hospitals held CR MDTs at least fortnightly in the UK and Europe by 2002 and 2005 respectively. In the USA, monthly MDTs became a mandatory element of cancer programmes by 2013. In the UK, USA and in several European countries, the lead of the MDT meeting is a surgeon and core members include the oncologist, specialist nurse, histopathologist, radiologist and gastroenterologist. There were differences observed in patient-selection criteria, in the use of information technology, MDT databases and quality assurance internationally.

Conclusion

CR MDTs are essential in improving the patient care pathway and should express clear recommendations for each patient. However, a form of quality assurance should be implemented across all MDTs.

Will virtual multidisciplinary team meetings become the norm for musculoskeletal oncology care following the COVID-19 pandemic? - experience from a tertiary sarcoma centre

Background

Like with all cancers, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the norm in bone and soft tissue tumour (BST) management too. Problem in attendance of specialists due to geographical location is the one of the key barriers to effective functioning of MDTs. To overcome this problem, virtual MDTs involving videoconferencing or telemedicine have been proposed, but however this has been seldom used and tested. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the implementation of virtual MDTs in the Oxford sarcoma service in order to maintain normal service provision. We conducted a survey among the participants to evaluate its efficacy.

Methods

An online questionnaire comprising of 24 questions organised into 4 sections was circulated among all participants of the MDT after completion of 8 virtual MDTs. Opinions were sought comparing virtual MDTs to the conventional face-to-face MDTs on various aspects. A total of 36 responses were received and were evaluated.

Results

72.8% were satisfied with the depth of discussion in virtual MDTs and 83.3% felt that the decision-making in diagnosis had not changed following the switch from face-to-face MDTs. About 86% reported to have all essential patient data was available to make decisions and 88.9% were satisfied with the time for discussion of patient issues over virtual platform. Three-fourths of the participants were satisfied (36.1% - highly satisfied; 38.9% - moderately satisfied) with virtual MDTs and 55.6% of them were happy to attend MDTs only by the virtual platform in the future. Regarding future, 77.8% of the participants opined that virtual MDTs would be the future of cancer care and an overwhelming majority (91.7%) felt that the present exercise would serve as a precursor to global MDTs involving specialists from abroad in the future.

Conclusion

Our study shows that the forced switch to virtual MDTs in sarcoma care following the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic to be a viable and effective alternative to conventional face-to-face MDTs. With effective and efficient software in place, virtual MDTs would also facilitate in forming extended MDTs in seeking opinions on complex cases from specialists abroad and can expand cancer care globally.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-020-03925-8.

Using virtual worlds as a platform for collaborative meetings in healthcare: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare teams often consist of geographically dispersed members. Virtual worlds can support immersive, high-quality, multimedia interaction between remote individuals; this study investigated use of virtual worlds to support remote healthcare quality improvement team meetings.

METHODS

Twenty individuals (12 female, aged 25-67 [M = 42.3, SD = 11.8]) from 6 healthcare quality improvement teams conducted collaborative tasks in virtual world or face-to-face settings. Quality of collaborative task performances were measured and questionnaires and interviews were used to record participants' experiences of conducting the tasks and using the virtual world software.

RESULTS

Quality of collaborative task outcomes was high in both face-to-face and virtual world settings. Participant interviews elicited advantages for using virtual worlds in healthcare settings, including the ability of the virtual environment to support tools that cannot be represented in equivalent face-to-face meetings, and the potential for virtual world settings to cause improvements in group-dynamics. Reported disadvantages for future virtual world use in healthcare included the difficulty that people with weaker computer skills may experience with using the software. Participants tended to feel absorbed in the collaborative task they conducted within the virtual world, but did not experience the virtual environment as being 'real'.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual worlds can provide an effective platform for collaborative meetings in healthcare quality improvement, but provision of support to those with weaker computer skills should be ensured, as should the technical reliability of the virtual world being used. Future research could investigate use of virtual worlds in other healthcare settings.

From Challenges to Resources: A Qualitative Study of Cancer Coordinators' Experiences of Barriers and Facilitators to Enacting Their System-Focused Tasks

BACKGROUND

Cancer coordinators (CCs) operate at both patient and system levels in order to provide patients with tailored and coordinated services. In common with international CCs, Norwegian CCs denote notable progress in their patient-focused work, while reporting ongoing challenges in carrying out system-focused tasks. However, little is known about the barriers and facilitators for CCs' system-level work.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore Norwegian CCs' experiences of barriers and facilitators for enacting system-focused tasks.

METHODS

The study applies a qualitative method, conducting an interpretative data inquiry of semistructured in-depth interviews with 26 Norwegian CCs. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis and discussed in light of previous research and salutogenic theory.

RESULTS

The analyses revealed 3 main themes: (1) "understanding the role and local cancer care," (2) "systems for care delivery in primary healthcare," and (3) "commitment to collaboration." Where present, the themes could represent important facilitators, whereas their absence could depict notable challenges to CCs system-focused work. Over time, as CCs were able to mobilize resources, they were able to gradually turn initial challenges into facilitators in the context of system-level work.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer coordinators encounter cognitive, practical, and relational topics that impact their system-focused activities. Adopting a salutogenic focus can help CCs mobilize resources needed to turn challenges into facilitators for system-level work.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Cancer care coordination cannot be undertaken by CCs alone. Cancer coordinators' embedding in multidisciplinary teams, common systems for care provision, meaningful work relations, and professionals' commitment to cancer care represent important facilitators for CCs' system-focused tasks.

Quality improvement measures: effects on rectal cancer tissue biopsy process

PURPOSE

Delay in histologically confirming rectal cancer may lead to late treatment as histological confirmation is required prior to chemo-radiotherapy or surgical intervention. Multidisciplinary colorectal meetings indicate that there are patients who require multiple tissue biopsy episodes prior to histologically confirming rectal cancer. The purpose of this paper is to examine a quality improvement (QI) measure's impact on tissue biopsy process diagnostic yield.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The authors performed the study in two phases (pre- and post-QI), between February 2012 and April 2014 in a district general hospital. The QI measures were derived from process mapping a rectal cancer diagnostic pathway. The primary outcome was to assess the tissue biopsy process diagnostic yield. The secondary outcome included total breaches for a 62-day target in the pre- and post-QI study phases.

FINDINGS

There was no significant difference in demographics or referral mode in both study phases. There were 81 patients in the pre-QI phase compared to 38 in the post-QI phase, 68 per cent and 74 per cent were referred via the two-week wait urgent pathway, respectively. Diagnostic tissue biopsy process yield improved from 58.1 to 77.6 per cent after implementing the QI measure ( p=0.02). The 62-day target breach was reduced from 14.8 to 3.5 per cent ( p=0.42).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Simple QI measures can achieve significant improvements in rectal cancer diagnostic tissue biopsy process yields. A multidisciplinary approach, involving process mapping and cause and effect modelling, proved useful tools.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

A process mapping exercise and QI measures resulted in significant improvements in diagnostic yield, reducing the episodes per patient before histological diagnosis was confirmed.

Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the value of the multidisciplinary health care team

Lung cancer is a major worldwide health burden, with high disease-related morbidity and mortality. Unlike other major cancers, there has been little improvement in lung cancer outcomes over the past few decades, and survival remains disturbingly low. Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, despite a relative lack of evidence that this model of care improves outcomes. In this article, the available literature concerning the impact of multidisciplinary care on key measures of lung cancer outcomes is reviewed. This includes the limited observational data supporting improved survival with multidisciplinary care. The impact of multidisciplinary care on other benchmark measures of quality lung cancer treatment is also examined, including staging accuracy, access to diagnostic investigations, improvements in clinical decision making, better utilization of radiotherapy and palliative care services, and improved quality of life for patients. Health service research suggests that multidisciplinary care improves care coordination, leading to a better patient experience, and reduces variation in care, a problem in lung cancer management that has been identified worldwide. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the multidisciplinary model of care overcomes barriers to treatment, promotes standardized treatment through adherence to guidelines, and allows audit of clinical services and for these reasons is more likely to provide quality care for lung cancer patients. While there is strengthening evidence suggesting that the multidisciplinary model of care contributes to improvements in lung cancer outcomes, more quality studies are needed.

A patient-centred approach toward surgical wait times for colon cancer: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Administrative wait times reflect the time from the decision to treat until surgery; however, this does not reflect the total time a patient actually waits for treatment. Several factors may prolong the wait for colon cancer surgery. We sought to analyze the time from the date of surgical consultation to the date of surgery and any events within this time frame that may extend wait times.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of all adult patients in Ontario aged 18-80 years with diagnosed colon cancer who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy and underwent resection electively between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2009. Wait times were measured from the date of surgical consultation to the date of surgery. We chose a wait time of 28 days, reflecting local administrative targets, as a comparative benchmark. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify variables contributing to a waits longer than 28 days. Variables were analyzed in continuous linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We included 10 223 patients in our study. The median wait time from initial surgical consultation to resection was 31 (range 0-182) days. Age older than 65 years had a negative impact on wait time. Preoperative services, including computed tomography, cardiac consultation, echocardiography, multigated acquisition scan, magnetic resonance imaging, colonoscopy and cardiac catheterization also significantly increased wait times. Wait times were longer in rural hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative services significantly increased wait times between initial surgical consultation and surgery.

Oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings: evaluation of quality criteria

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To develop a guideline with quality criteria for an optimal structure and functioning of a multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM), and to assess to what extent the Dutch MTMs complied with these criteria.

METHOD

A literature search and expert opinions were used to develop a guideline for optimal MTMs. In order to assess adherence to the guideline, we conducted interviews with MTM chairs and observed general and tumour-specific MTMs in seven hospitals.

RESULTS

The new guideline included the following domains: (i) organization of the MTMs; (ii) membership of the MTM and roles and responsibilities of the members; (iii) the meeting itself; and (iv) documentation of meeting-recommendations. We observed good adherence to the quality criteria on the organization of the MTMs. Only the required coordinator/administrative support was often absent, particularly during general MTMs. Regarding membership of MTMs and roles, the recommended average attendance of 100% of the core disciplines was never reached and particularly the role of the chair needs improvement. Regarding the meeting itself, many interruptions took place and relevant information about the diagnoses of the cases was not available in 4-5% of the cases. Concerning the documentation of meeting-recommendations, only in a quarter of the meetings a specific form was used for the documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a lot of diversity in the organization of MTMs. The variation in compliance with the quality criteria may decrease with better knowledge about the quality criteria around MTMs and by overcoming practical barriers for the effective organization of MTMs.

Does tuition for journal referees work? A quantitative evaluation of a half-day tuition course

AIM

Most consultants participating as referees in the peer review process of papers submitted to scholarly journals have had no training or tuition. This study attempted to evaluate the effect on reviewing of a half-day course held at the Royal Society of Medicine.

METHOD

Registered consultant delegates were sent two 'doctored' papers, a case report and an original paper, well before the meeting to review at home using the standard computerized score sheet issued with referee requests by Colorectal Disease. At the start of the meeting the scores were entered into a computer as 'Before'. After each paper had been presented and then discussed, it was re-marked to give the 'After' score. The Before and After scores were compared with the post-meeting feedback forms.

RESULTS

The Before and After scores provided by the participants for the two papers each reviewed were not significantly different for the questions relating to the publication/rejection decision. The Before score was higher than the After score for questions relating to the Abstract, Introduction and Method sections. Feedback forms regarding the tuition were universally positive and appreciative.

CONCLUSION

Consultants already have the expertise to decide whether a paper should be rejected. The study day appears to give an additional insight that may change an initial opinion. In general a paper scored before the meeting was scored lower after it was presented and discussed at the meeting (the tuition).

A comparative study of colorectal surgical outcome in a national audit separated by 15 years

AIM

The Wales-Trent Bowel Cancer Audit (WTBA) was carried out in 1993, and since 2001 Welsh Bowel Cancer Audits (WBCA) have taken place annually. Screening for bowel cancer in Wales was introduced in 2008. This study compared patient variables, the role of surgery and operative mortality rates over the 15-year interval between the WTBA and the last WBCA before the introduction of population screening.

METHOD

Data from the WTBA in 1993 were compared with those of the WBCA including patients diagnosed between April 2007 and March 2008.

RESULTS

In 1993, 1536 patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with 1793 in 2007-2008. Patient demographics and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score did not change during these periods. Surgical treatment for CRC decreased (93% in 1993 vs 80% in 2007-2008; P < 0.001) particularly in the use of resectional surgery (84% in 1993 vs 71% in 2007-2008; P < 0.001). The 30-day postoperative mortality rate fell from 7.4% in 1993 to 5.9% in 2007-2008 (P = 0.097). Advanced disease at operation was more prevalent in the WTBA (25% of all operated patients were Stage IV in 1993 vs 13% in 2007-2008; P < 0.001). The use of surgery in patients with metastatic disease also declined over this period.

CONCLUSION

Surgery is used less frequently in the management of CRC compared with 15 years previously, and is a factor in the reduction of the interpreted 30-day operative mortality.

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.

"Fast Track" nasogastric decompression of rectal cancer surgery

This study evaluates the application of fast track (FT) nasogastric decompression in patients who underwent anterior resection of rectal cancer. A randomized control trial was performed comparing the group with the fast track treatment (n = 57) and the group with traditional nasogastric decompression (n = 84). Preoperative characteristics and postoperative recovery indices were recorded and analyzed. The results indicate no significant differences in gender (P = 0.614), age (P = 0.653), tumor location (P = 0.113), and TNM stages (P = 0.054) were observed between the 2 groups. The differences in the type of resection, anastomosis, and adoption of protective colostomy were all not significant between the FT and the traditional group. During the first 24 hours after surgery, the volume of nasogastric drainage averaged 197 ml in the FT group and 155 ml in the traditional group (P = 0.197). The initiation of test-meal (P = 0.000), semiliquid diet (P = 0.002), and ordinary diet (P = 0.008) were all significantly shorter in the FT group. Furthermore, compared with the other group, the patients in the FT group enjoyed earlier removal of the abdominal drainage, urinary catheter, and shorter hospital stays (P = 0.000). Based on a correlation test, the duration of nasogastric decompression is related to the time of test-meal and semiliquid diet. The routine usage of nasogastric decompression in rectal surgery is unnecessary. The fast track procedure might help in facilitating postoperative functional and diet recovery, reducing the time of catheterization, and shortening hospital stay.

Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Factors that affect the quality of clinical decisions of multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs) are not well understood. We reviewed and synthesised the evidence on clinical, social and technological factors that affect the quality of MDT clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched in May 2009. Eligible studies reported original data, quantitative or qualitative. Data were extracted and tabulated by two blinded reviewers, and study quality formally evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included. Study quality was low to medium. Studies assessed quality of care decisions via the effect of MDTs on care management. MDTs changed cancer management by individual physicians in 2-52% of cases. Failure to reach a decision at MDT discussion was found in 27-52% of cases. Decisions could not be implemented in 1-16% of cases. Team decisions are made by physicians, using clinical information. Nursing personnel do not have an active role, and patient preferences are not discussed. Time pressure, excessive caseload, low attendance, poor teamworking and lack of leadership lead to lack of information and deterioration of decision-making. Telemedicine is increasingly used in developed countries, with no detriment to quality of MDT decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Team/social factors affect management decisions by cancer MDTs. Inclusion of time to prepare for MDTs into team-members' job plans, making team and leadership skills training available to team-members, and systematic input from nursing personnel would address some of the current shortcomings. These improvements ought to be considered at national policy level, with the ultimate aim of improving cancer care.

The role of the pathologist in rectal cancer diagnosis and staging and surgical quality assessment

Since the introduction of the total mesorectal excision by Heald, many changes in the therapeutic management of rectal cancer have been incorporated. The multidisciplinary approach to colorectal cancer, integrated in a team of different specialists, ensures individualised treatment for each patient with rectal cancer. Therefore the role of the pathologist has acquired an important relevance, not only in diagnosing but also managing and evaluating the surgical specimen. The knowledge of preoperative staging, distance between tumour and anal verge or in patients subjected to a neoadjuvant treatment is necessary for the pathologist to make a detailed, accurate and good-quality report. Parameters such as the macroscopic quality of the mesorectum, the status of the circumferential resection margin and the lymph node harvest are considered basic criteria recommended by the current guidelines for the multidisciplinary team audit.

A pre-post test evaluation of the impact of the PELICAN MDT-TME Development Programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members

BACKGROUND

The PELICAN Multidisciplinary Team Total Mesorectal Excision (MDT-TME) Development Programme aimed to improve clinical outcomes for rectal cancer by educating colorectal cancer teams in precision surgery and related aspects of multidisciplinary care. The Programme reached almost all colorectal cancer teams across England. We took the opportunity to assess the impact of participating in this novel team-based Development Programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members.

METHODS

The impact of participating in the programme on team members' self-reported job stress, job satisfaction and team performance was assessed in a pre-post course study. 333/568 (59%) team members, from the 75 multidisciplinary teams who attended the final year of the Programme, completed questionnaires pre-course, and 6-8 weeks post-course.

RESULTS

Across all team members, the main sources of job satisfaction related to working in multidisciplinary teams; whilst feeling overloaded was the main source of job stress. Surgeons and clinical nurse specialists reported higher levels of job satisfaction than team members who do not provide direct patient care, whilst MDT coordinators reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and job stress. Both job stress and satisfaction decreased after participating in the Programme for all team members. There was a small improvement in team performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in the Development Programme had a mixed impact on the working lives of team members in the immediate aftermath of attending. The decrease in team members' job stress may reflect the improved knowledge and skills conferred by the Programme. The decrease in job satisfaction may be the consequence of being unable to apply these skills immediately in clinical practice because of a lack of required infrastructure and/or equipment. In addition, whilst the Programme raised awareness of the challenges of teamworking, a greater focus on tackling these issues may have improved working lives further.

What are the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

National cancer policies identify the improvement of care coordination as a priority to improve the delivery of health services for people with cancer. Identification of the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination is needed to drive service improvement.

METHODS

A qualitative study was undertaken in which semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with those best placed to identify issues; patients who had been treated for a range of cancers and their carers as well as health professionals involved in providing cancer care. Data collection continued until saturation of concepts was reached. A grounded theory influenced approach was used to explore the participants' experiences and views of cancer care coordination.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 patients, four carers and 29 health professionals participated. Barriers to cancer care coordination related to six aspects of care namely, recognising health professional roles and responsibilities, implementing comprehensive multidisciplinary team meetings, transitioning of care: falling through the cracks, inadequate communication between specialist and primary care, inequitable access to health services and managing scarce resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified a number of barriers to coordination of cancer care. Development and evaluation of interventions based on these findings is now required.

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring the attitudes of cancer care providers and administrators

The multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) provides an outlet for contributors in cancer care collectively to evaluate diagnosis and treatment options and to provide optimal patient care. The prevalence and perceived benefits of MCCs in Canada have not previously been described. Between February and March 2007, the Cancer Services Integration Survey, including four key statements concerning MCCs, was administered to cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario, Canada. A total of 1,769 responses were received with a response rate of 33%. Overall, 74% of respondents were aware of MCCs within their region, but only 58% were either regular MCC participants, or acknowledged participation of cancer providers in their institutions. Using multilevel modeling, physicians (OR 2.69, p-value < 0.01, 95% CI 1.62-4.57) and surgeons (OR 3.00, p-value < 0.01, 95% CI 1.52-6.20) both perceived greater benefit of MCCs for coordinating and improving patient plans than administrators. Although MCCs appear to positively influence patient care and interprofessional interactions, variability exists among cancer providers and administrators concerning their acceptance and perceived benefits. Further research should concentrate on further probing these trends, and exploring explanations and solutions for the inconsistent acceptance of MCCs into routine cancer care.

Improving patient survival with the colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary team

OBJECTIVE

There is little information on the impact of the colorectal multi-disciplinary team (MDT) in the United Kingdom. Our single operator presented his patients before and after the inception of an MDT meeting in June 2002. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of this on his patients' survival, and trends in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHOD

Data were collected on all patients (n = 310) undergoing colectomy for colorectal cancer by one surgeon. Excluding patients with Dukes A stage, the pre-MDT cohort from January 1997 to May 2002 was 176 and the post-MDT cohort from June 2002 to December 2005 was 134. Three-year survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier life table analysis. Prognostic factors were analysed using Cox-proportional hazard regression, and chemotherapy data analysed using the chi-squared test. Independent prognostic indicators of chemotherapy prescription were examined using binary logistic testing.

RESULTS

MDT status was shown to be an independent predictor of survival on hazard regression analysis (P = 0.044). A significantly greater number of patients were prescribed adjuvant chemotherapy in the post-MDT cohort (P = 0.0002). MDT status was shown to be a significant prognostic indicator of chemotherapy prescription (P < 0.0001). Three-year survival for Dukes C patients was 58% in the pre-MDT group, and 66% in the post-MDT group (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

There was a significant increase in patients undergoing adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy after the inception of the MDT. This was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with Dukes C disease. The data suggest that the MDT process has resulted in an increase in the prescription of adjuvant chemotherapy, with 3-year survival being greater after its inception.

An evaluation of treatment decisions at a colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary team

OBJECTIVE

It is mandatory for treatment decisions for patients with colorectal cancer to be made within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. It is currently uncertain, however, how to best evaluate the quality of MDT decision-making. This study examined MDT decision-making by studying whether MDT treatment decisions were implemented and investigated the reasons why some decisions changed after the meeting.

METHOD

Consecutive MDT treatment decisions were prospectively recorded. Implementation of decisions was studied by examining hospital records. Reasons for changes in MDT decisions were identified.

RESULTS

In all, 201 consecutive treatment decisions were analysed, concerning 157 patients. Twenty decisions (10.0%, 95% confidence interval 6.3-15.2%) were not implemented. Looking at the reasons for nonimplementation, nine (40%) related to co-morbidity, seven (35%) to patient choice, two changed in light of new clinical information, one doctor changed a decision and for one changed decision, no reason was apparent. When decisions changed, the final treatment was always more conservative than was originally planned and decisions were more likely to change for colon rather than rectal cancer (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of colorectal MDT decisions were implemented and when decisions changed, it mostly related to patient factors that had not been taken into account. Analysis of the implementation of team decisions is an informative process to monitor the quality of MDT decision-making.

Colorectal MDTs: the team's perspective

OBJECTIVE

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are an integral part of the National Cancer Plan. However, there is surprisingly little empirical research on how these are perceived by colorectal surgeons (CRSs) and colorectal clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). The purpose of this study therefore was to obtain the views of a national cohort of CRSs and CNSs regarding various important aspects of MDT functioning and role of CNS in current setting.

METHOD

Two hundred and fifty-three CRSs and 177 CNSs, identified from the Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland, responded to an ad hoc postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

96.5% of respondents considered that MDTs improved the overall quality of care of colorectal cancer patients, and 78.6% thought MDTs were good for their morale. Eighty per cent considered that they improved training. Seventy-three per cent of surgeons and nurses thought that MDTs were cost effective, and 89% did not consider them to be a passing fad. However, more than half (50.4%) of the CRSs and 35.2% of the CNSs stated that their job plan did not contain adequate time to attend MDT meetings. Compared with CRSs, CNSs were significantly more likely to have positive views regarding the MDT (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

CNSs and CRSs consider that colorectal MDTs have very beneficial effects on patient care, training and morale. However, many surgeons and nurse specialists consider that attendance at MDTs is not taken into account adequately in terms of their job plans, and this issue needs to be addressed.

Results of a survey of the role of multidisciplinary team coordinators for colorectal cancer in England and Wales

OBJECTIVE

Over the last 6 years, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have been established and play a key role in organizing the delivery of cancer care in the UK. There are no published data on the roles of their co-coordinators. To seek the views of colorectal multidisciplinary team co-ordinators (MDTCs) on what they do and how they do it.

METHOD

Questionnaires were sent to the colorectal MDTC, or equivalent, in all 180 NHS hospital trusts in England and Wales where colorectal cancer surgery is performed.

RESULTS

There was a 70% response rate. Seventy-one per cent of trusts now have a dedicated MDTC, whereas in 2002, only 40% had one. MDTCs generally keep their information on databases, but these differ, and are not coordinated with data entry into the national colorectal cancer database of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. In only 26 trusts does the MDTC communicate decisions to primary care, and the patients seem almost completely excluded from this process.

CONCLUSION

The recently formed national MDTC Forum should grasp the opportunity of coordinating all of this well-intentioned but pluralistic activity to the benefit of patients, primary care and hospital teams. An effective MDTC with a robust database will be the key in achieving cancer waiting time targets with useful audit, thereby improving patient care.

Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?

Cancer care can be complex, and given the wide range and numbers of health-care professionals involved, an enormous potential for poor coordination and miscommunication exists. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should improve coordination, communication, and decision making between health-care team members and patients, and hopefully produce more positive outcomes. This review describes the many practical barriers to the successful implementation of MDT working, and shows that despite an increase in the delivery of cancer services via this method, research showing the effectiveness of MDT working is scarce.

The impact of the Calman-Hine report on the processes and outcomes of care for Yorkshire's colorectal cancer patients

The 1995 Calman-Hine plan outlined radical reform of the UK's cancer services with the aim of improving outcomes and reducing inequalities in NHS cancer care. Its main recommendation was to concentrate care into the hands of site-specialist, multi-disciplinary teams. This study aimed to determine if the implementation of Calman-Hine cancer teams was associated with improved processes and outcomes of care for colorectal cancer patients. The design included longitudinal survey of 13 colorectal cancer teams in Yorkshire and retrospective study of population-based data collected by the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service. The population was all colorectal cancer patients diagnosed and treated in Yorkshire between 1995 and 2000. The main outcome measures were: variations in the use of anterior resection and preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer, chemotherapy in Dukes stage C and D patients, and five-year survival. Using multilevel models, these outcomes were assessed in relation to measures of the extent of Calman-Hine implementation throughout the study period, namely: (i) each team's degree of adherence to the Manual of Cancer Service Standards (which outlines the specification of the 'ideal' colorectal cancer team) and (ii) the extent of site specialisation of each team's surgeons. Variation was observed in the extent to which the colorectal cancer teams in Yorkshire had conformed to the Calman-Hine recommendations. An increase in surgical site specialisation was associated with increased use of preoperative radiotherapy (OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.04-1.98, P<0.04) and anterior resection (OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.16-1.76, P<0.01) in rectal cancer patients. Increases in adherence to the Manual of Cancer Service Standards was associated with improved five-year survival after adjustment for the casemix factors of age, stage of disease, socioeconomic status and year of diagnosis, especially for colon cancer (HR=0.97, 95% CI=0.94-0.99 P<0.01). There was a similar trend of improved survival in relation to increased surgical site specialisation for rectal cancer, although the effect was not statistically significant (HR=0.93, 95% CI=0.84-1.03, P=0.15). In conclusion, the extent of implementation of the Calman-Hine report has been variable and its recommendations are associated with improvements in processes and outcomes of care for colorectal cancer patients.

Straight to test: introduction of a city-wide protocol driven investigation of suspected colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To decrease waiting times for colorectal cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

Following extensive negotiations on three sites, we replaced the standard referral route of GP to outpatient clinic with city-wide implementation of a protocol driven sequence based on the patient's declared symptoms, the initial consultation being replaced by the first test taking place within 31 days. No choice in test allocation was granted; difficult cases were adjudicated by named consultants. We used a 'dry run' to make sure that our planned changes would not overload our local capacity, leading to a pilot run involving 1/3 clinicians, followed by a full cross-city implementation over two months.

RESULTS

In 2001, before the pilot only 116/188 (62%) of our colorectal cancers who were referred either under the 2-week-wait arrangements or on a 'soon' basis were diagnosed within 31 days of referral. Our 'dry run' established that we did have the capacity to service our planned sequence of tests. In the pilot, all colorectal cancers were diagnosed within 31 days of referral, and 95% of all diagnoses (no abnormality or benign disease) were reached within 31 days of referral. After full implementation 19/19 (100%) of our cancers coming through our protocol system were diagnosed within 31 days and 95% of patients with benign disease.

CONCLUSION

Follow-up audit of our system one and two years later shows that we now diagnose approximately 80% of our colorectal cancers who are referred under the 2 week wait or as 'soon' referrals within 31 days. We have successfully redesigned our service, at minimal expense, in a way, which should enable us to meet the government targets in the National Cancer Plan.

Changing trends in the management of colorectal cancers and its impact on cancer waiting times

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the differences in the presentation, management and waiting times for new colorectal cancer (CRC) patients over 5 years in a single metropolitan cancer centre.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study of new patients with CRC presenting in the years 1998 and 2003. The groups were compared for referral type, Dukes' stage, site, cancer waiting times and primary treatment.

RESULTS

There were 72 new patients in 1998 and 77 in 2003. In 1998 33% were seen urgently and 28% as emergencies whereas in 2003 55% of patients were seen as urgent or target wait patients and 16% as emergencies. The 2-week target for urgent referrals was met in 50% of cases in 1998 and 90% in 2003. In 2003 a higher proportion of patients received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. Stage at diagnosis was similar in both groups, except stage 'D' which was 21% in 1998 and only 12% in 2003. The 31-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target from decision to treat to first treatment would have been met in 81% of cases in 1998 and 79% in 2003. The 62-day overall CWT target from referral to first treatment for urgent GP referrals would have been met in 46% of cases in 1998 and 57% in 2003.

CONCLUSION

More CRC patients were referred urgently in 2003. Most, but not all of these were referred as target waits. The time taken for the patient's journey did not improve between the two cohorts, possibly in part, because more complex treatments are now provided. Further work and perhaps new thinking are needed in order to achieve Cancer Waiting Time targets.