Experiences of hospital-based multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology: An interview study among participating general practitioners

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.

Adapting patients' oncological treatment through remote participation of general practitioners in multi-disciplinary consultation meetings: A feasibility study

Background

The general practitioner (GP) is central to managing patients with cancer, whose numbers are increasing worldwide. The GP’s involvement requires better coordination between involved partners, in particular oncologists and GPs.

Objectives

To conduct a feasibility study of remote participation of GPs in multi-disciplinary consultation meetings (MCMs). We analysed participation, participants’ satisfaction, and their impact on therapeutic decisions.

Methods

We conducted a feasibility study in the regional cancer centre of Toulouse, France. All patient cases discussed in the MCMs for myelodysplasia from 1 January to 31 March 2016 were included. Cases of patients aged over 18 years, with a diagnosis of myelodysplasia and registered with a GP were included if patients gave informed consent. One investigator collected the data provided by GPs during three telephone or video calls: before, during, and after the MCM, respectively.

Results

Of 86 patient cases discussed during three months of MCMs, 44 were eligible for GP participation; 27 GPs participated in discussions of 27 patient cases. The GP’s participation in the MCM led to a change in management in five cases, with four times treatment intensifications and once de-intensification. Medical, social, family-related, and psychological domains were discussed with input from the GPs. Overall, all participants were satisfied with the MCMs.

Conclusion

Remote participation of GPs in MCMs is feasible and may result in adapting oncological and haematological management for patients. This patient-centred approach requires a specific organisation that, when implemented, satisfies the needs of all participants.

Cancer patient management: role of multidisciplinary teams

OBJECTIVES

As a cancer model recommended by numerous governments and health care systems, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can improve clinical decision-making and overall patient care quality. This paper aims to discuss key elements and resources, as well as contingencies for effectiveness MDTs and their meetings.

METHODS

We derived elements, resources, and contingencies for effective MDTs by analyzing articles on the themes of MDTs and MDT meetings.

RESULTS

This paper identifies key elements comprising MDT characteristics, team governance, infrastructure for MDM, MDM organization, MDM logistics, and clinical decision-making in light of patient-centeredness. Resources that facilitate an MDM functioning consist of human resources and non-human resources. The paper further detects barriers to the sustainable performance of MDTs and provide suggestions for improving their functioning in light of patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTs are vital to cancer care through enabling healthcare professionals with diversity of clinical specialties to collaborate and formulate optimal treatment recommendations for patients with suspected or confirmed cancer.

Continuity of care experienced by patients in a multi-institutional pancreatic care network: a pilot study

Background

Over the past decades, health care services for pancreatic surgery were reorganized. Volume norms were applied with the result that only a limited number of expert centers perform pancreatic surgery. As a result of this centralization of pancreatic surgery, the patient journey of patients with pancreatic tumors has become multi-institutional. To illustrate, patients are referred to a center of expertise for pancreatic surgery whereas other parts of pancreatic care, such as chemotherapy, take place in local hospitals. This fragmentation of health care services could affect continuity of care (COC). The aim of this study was to assess COC perceived by patients in a pancreatic care network and investigate correlations with patient-and care-related characteristics.

Methods

This is a pilot study in which patients with (pre) malignant pancreatic tumors discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board in a Dutch tertiary hospital were asked to participate. Patients were asked to fill out the Nijmegen Continuity of Care-questionnaire (NCQ) (5-point Likert scale). Additionally, their patient-and care-related data were retrieved from medical records. Correlations of NCQ score and patient-and care-related characteristics were calculated with Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Results

In total, 44 patients were included (92% response rate). Pancreatic cancer was the predominant diagnosis (32%). Forty percent received a repetition of diagnostic investigations in the tertiary hospital. Mean scores for personal continuity were 3.55 ± 0.74 for GP, 3.29 ± 0.91 for the specialist and 3.43 ± 0.65 for collaboration between GPs and specialists. Overall COC was scored with a mean 3.38 ± 0.72. No significant correlations were observed between NCQ score and certain patient-or care-related characteristics.

Conclusion

Continuity of care perceived by patients with pancreatic tumors was scored as moderate. This outcome supports the need to improve continuity of care within multi-institutional pancreatic care networks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06431-2.

Healthcare professionals' experiences of inter-professional collaboration during patient's transfers between care settings in palliative care: A focus group study

BACKGROUND

Continuity of care is challenging when transferring patients across palliative care settings. These transfers are common due to the complexity of palliative care, which has increased significantly since the advent of palliative care services. It is unclear how palliative care services and professionals currently collaborate and communicate to ensure the continuity of care across settings, and how patient and family members are involved.

AIM

To explore healthcare professionals' experiences regarding the communicative aspects of inter-professional collaboration and the involvement of patient and family members.

DESIGN

Qualitative design, including focus group discussions.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The study focused on one palliative care network in Belgium and involved all palliative care settings: hospital, hospital's palliative care unit, home care, nursing home. Nine group discussions were conducted, with diverse professionals (n = 53) from different care settings.

RESULTS

Timely and effective inter-professional information exchange was considered fundamental. A perceived barrier for interprofessional collaboration was the lack of a shared electronic health record. Efficiency regarding multidisciplinary team meetings and inter-professional communication were subject to improvement.A striking study finding was the perceived insufficient open communication of specialists towards patients and the lack of shared decision making. This not only hampered advance care planning discussions and early integration of palliative home care, but also the functioning of other professionals.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the integrated care framework, several areas of improvement on different levels of care and collaboration are identified. Support from policymakers and researchers is required to achieve integrated palliative care in regional networks.

Adverse events of targeted therapies reported by patients with cancer treated in primary care

Background

Targeted Therapies (TT) are among the therapeutic innovations for cancer treatment in outpatient settings. TT-related Adverse Events (AEs) are a source of loss of opportunity for patients if their management is inappropriate.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to describe the AE frequency and severity as reported by patients with cancer who received TT in ambulatory settings. A second objective was to describe the role of the general practitioner (GP) in the management of AEs.

Methods

All patients who started TT at a French Regional Cancer Centre in 2017–2018 were eligible for this 12-month prospective study. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed at inclusion and returned after three months. In the questionnaire, patients listed all AEs that occurred during this period and rated their severity. Occurrence and severity were compared with the rating by a specialised nurse. Patients also indicated the health professional they contacted first for the reported AE.

Results

Among the 247 eligible patients, 15 were excluded and 144 responded to the questionnaire. Fourteen different TTs have been prescribed. Asthenia (92.4%) and anorexia (64.6%) were the most frequent AE. Patients’ AE severity rating was more severe than the nurse’s rating for all drugs (p < 0.001). Patients first contacted their GP for 15.6% of AEs, whereas 20.7% of AEs were not reported to any health professional.

Conclusion

Patients experienced an average of 4 AEs. AE severity rating was significantly different between patients and nurses. Patients do not always communicate AEs to health care professionals.

Cross-sectoral video consultation in cancer care: GPs' evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Shared care models present an opportunity for patients to receive the benefits of specialist care combined with the continuity of care provided by a GP.

Aim

To test the effects on GP-perceived involvement in cancer care and their satisfaction with this cross-sectoral information after bringing the patient, GP, and oncologist together in a shared video consultation.

Design & setting

GPs from the Region of Southern Denmark evaluated a randomised controlled trial testing shared video consultations.

Method

This study describes secondary outcomes based on a 4 months' follow-up survey from GPs participating in The Partnership Project (PSP). Patient perception of coordination of care at 7 months' follow-up was the primary outcome of the PSP. A tripartite video consultation was conducted during cancer treatment to share tasks and roles between health professionals with the patient.

Results

The study included 281 patients, and 105 unique GPs returned 124 questionnaires. Video consultations were accomplished in 68% of scheduled cases. The study found an increased odds ratio (OR) of 3.03 for GP satisfaction with the distribution of tasks and roles, and they experienced more involvement in the cancer patients' trajectory. The study found an increased OR of 6.95 for the GP perception of more direct contact and dialogue with the Department of Oncology. There was a decreased OR of 0.88 for the GP to be engaged in handling anxiety and psychological concerns.

Conclusion

The study showed that involving the GP in one shared consultation increased the odds of the GP being satisfied with the distribution of tasks and roles, and feeling more involved in the cancer patient’s trajectory. However, recruitment and response rates from GPs were limiting factors.

Breaking the general practice-hospital divide: Engaging primary care practitioners in multidisciplinary cancer care

AIMS

To integrate primary care into multidisciplinary cancer meetings and improve communication between hospital- and community-based care providers.

METHODS

A 12-week pilot study was conducted at Western Health, implementing a model of care, where two general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from the local community to attend weekly breast and lung multidisciplinary meetings in a liaison role as a primary care representative (PCR). Community GPs and hospital specialists were surveyed at the end of the study to assess the impact of this model of care.

RESULTS

All stakeholders agreed that two-way communication between hospital- and community-based care was improved. The role of the PCR enabled better engagement of GPs in cancer care, allowing them to manage their patients with more confidence. Patient information contributed by GPs provided a wider context for hospital specialist treatment planning and decision making.

CONCLUSION

This project has demonstrated an effective model to integrate primary care practitioners in multidisciplinary cancer care, as it enables timely and relevant two-way communication between the community and hospital care.

Investigating whether shared video-based consultations with patients, oncologists, and GPs can benefit patient-centred cancer care: a qualitative study

Background

Guidelines have proposed that GPs should have a central role as coordinators of care and support patients with cancer during all stages of treatment, follow-up, and rehabilitation. Multidisciplinary video consultation involving the patient with cancer, the oncologist, and the GP may help to define roles and tasks, and this resulting clarity may enable greater support for patients with cancer.

Aim

To explore the consultation structure, content, and task clarification when a GP and an oncologist are attending a video consultation with a patient with cancer.

Design & setting

A qualitative study took place in the Region of Southern Denmark to investigate multidisciplinary video consultations, based on thematic analysis.

Method

Recordings of 12 video consultations were analysed using the framework method. A combined deductive and inductive approach was undertaken. The deductive themes were selected based on a consultation guide given to the doctors before the consultations.

Results

The study identified 15 themes, which were grouped into the following three categories: the implications of sharing a consultation; consultation structure; and health concerns.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary video-based consultations with a patient and two health professionals succeeded in having a patient-centred communication style. In clarifying tasks between the GP and oncologist to support the patient, work-related issues and professional support for psychosocial challenges were always a task for the GP. Dissemination of this first-line evidence may improve acceptability among medical specialists and help assist GPs in supporting patients with cancer. However, focus on the involvement of relatives should be emphasised.

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners

Purpose

Multidisciplinary video consultations are one method of improving coherence and coordination of care in cancer patients, but knowledge of user perspectives is lacking. Continuity of care is expected to have a significant impact on the quality of cancer care. Enhanced task clarification and shared responsibility between the patient, oncologist and general practitioner through video consultations might provide enhanced continuity in cancer care.

Method

We used descriptive survey data from patients and doctors in the intervention group based on a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the user perspectives and fidelity of the intervention.

Results

Patients expressed that they were able to present their concerns in 95% of the consultations, and believed it was beneficial to have both their doctors present in 84%. The general practitioner and oncologist found that tripartite video consultation would lead to better coordination of care in almost 90% of the consultations. However, the benefits of handling social issues and comorbidity were sparser. Consultations were not accomplished in 11% due to technical problems and sound and video quality were non-satisfactory in 20%.

Conclusion

Overall, multidisciplinary video consultations between cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist were feasible in daily clinics. Initial barriers to address were technical issues and seamless planning. Patients reported high satisfaction, patient centredness and clarity of roles. General practitioners and oncologists were overall positive regarding role clarification and continuity, although less pronounced than patients.

Trial registration

www.clincialtrials.gov, NCT02716168.