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

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.

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.

Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review

Background

Understanding of factors that contribute to implementation of effective cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) is still limited. Published literature on the effect of teamwork function, leadership roles, decision‐making processes and structural components on the quality of MDMs was reviewed and synthesised.

Methods

In this paper, a MEDLINE review (September 2020) was performed to assess clinical decision‐making in the context of MDM discussions.

Results

Twenty‐nine eligible studies were included. Six studies addressed the infrastructural aspects of MDMs. Nine studies used either qualitative or mixed method approach to develop and validate observational tools to assess the quality of MDMs. Seven studies used qualitative approaches to explore the opinions of MDM members on factors that impact on the effectiveness of MDMs. Five studies used validated observational tools to observe and assess the effectiveness of MDMs. One prospective study explored the relationship between quality of information presented at MDMs and ability of MDM members to make clinical decisions. The final study prospectively tested the ability of a multicomponent intervention to improve decision‐making processes within MDMs.

Conclusions

A broad range of factors including teamwork, leadership, case complexity, decision‐making processes and availability of patient information were identified to impact the quality of MDMs. Evidence currently available largely focuses on the development of tools to identify factors in need of improvement to optimise MDMs. Robust research is required to identify the factors that are demonstrated to enhance MDM quality which can then aid the standardisation of how MDMs are conducted.

The complexities, coordination, culture and capacities that characterise the delivery of oncology services in the common areas of ambulatory settings

Background

Relatively little is understood about real-world provision of oncology care in ambulatory outpatient clinics (OPCs). This study aimed to: 1) develop an understanding of behaviours and practices inherent in the delivery of cancer services in OPC common areas by characterising the organisation and implementation of this care; and 2) identify barriers to, and facilitators of, the delivery of this care in OPC common areas.

Methods

A purpose-designed ethnographic study was employed in four public hospital OPCs. Informal field scoping activities were followed by in-situ observations, key informant interviews and document review. A view of OPCs as complex adaptive systems was used as a scaffold for the data collection and interpretation, with the intent of understanding ‘work as done’. Data were analysed using an adapted “Qualitative Rapid Appraisal, Rigorous Analysis” approach.

Results

Field observations were conducted over 135 h, interviews over 6.5 h and documents were reviewed. Analysis found six themes. Staff working in OPCs see themselves as part of small local teams and as part of a broader multidisciplinary care team. Professional role boundaries could be unclear in practice, as duties expanded to meet demand or to stop patients “falling through the cracks.” Formal care processes in OPCs were supported by relationships, social capital and informal, but invaluable, institutional expertise. Features of the clinic layout, such as the proximity of departments, affected professional interactions. Staff were aware of inter- and intra-service communication difficulties and employed strategies to minimise negative impacts on patients. We found that complexity, coordination, culture and capacity underpin the themes that characterise this care provision.

Conclusions

The study advances understanding of how multidisciplinary care is delivered in ambulatory settings and the factors which promote or inhibit effective care practice. Time pressures, communication challenges and competing priorities can pose barriers to care delivery. OPC care is facilitated by: self-organisation of participants; professional acumen; institutional knowledge; social ties and relationships between and within professional groups; and commitment to patient-centred care. An understanding of the realities of ‘work-as-done’ may help OPCs to sustain high-quality care in the face of escalating service demand.

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.

Developing a maturity model for cancer multidisciplinary teams

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the "gold standard" of care for patients with cancer but how well they function and the role they play in decision making varies widely. Although several observational tools have been developed to evaluate MDT performance, they are resource intensive and only assess MDT performance at a static point in time. The aim of this study was to develop a validated maturity model as a self-assessment instrument for MDTs to evaluate their performance and monitor improvement over time.

METHODS

The authors used a three-phase methodology to develop a maturity model. In the first phase, using a modified Delphi technique, we identified 20 indicators (within five components), each having five levels of maturity [1]. In the second phase, further Delphi iterations were undertaken to refine the content and structure of the model. By the end of the second phase six components and 17 indicators had been established. In the third phase, the refined model was distributed to members from 11 MDTs to test for validity and reliability. 101 valid responses were received. Principal Component Analysis was used to determine the optimal number of components that fit the indicators. Factors with eigenvalue greater than one were extracted. Cronbach's alpha (α) was used to measure the internal consistency of components. Bivariate correlation analysis, measuring pair-wise relationships between indicators (r), was undertaken to assess convergent and discriminant validity.

RESULTS

Five factors were extracted from Principal Component Analysis. For the factors extracted, 16 out of 17 indicators showed loadings greater than the 0.4 threshold. All components demonstrated good levels of internal consistency (α > 0.8) and convergent validity (r > 0.6). Discriminant validity cannot be established. Ratings for ease of use (3.6/5) and usefulness (3.4/5) were considered acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is required to establish discriminant validity and refine the components and indicators. Once further refinement and validation are completed, the maturity model should be a simple tool for MDTs to measure their performance and monitor improvement over time.

Variability in Thyroid Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Recommendations Is Not Explained by Standard Variables: Outcomes of a Single Centre Review

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the mainstay of the decision-making process for patients presenting with complex clinical problems such as papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Adherence to guidelines by MDTs has been extensively investigated; however, scarce evidence exists on MDT performance and variability where guidelines are less prescriptive. We evaluated the consistency of MDT management recommendations for T1 and T2 PTC patients and explored key variables that may influence therapeutic decision making. A retrospective review of the prospective database of all T1 and T2 PTC patients discussed by the MDT was conducted between January 2016 and May 2021. Univariate analysis (with Bonferroni correction significance calculated at p < 0.006) was performed to establish clinical variables linked to completion thyroidectomy and Radioactive iodine (RAI) recommendations. Of 468 patients presented at thyroid MDT, 144 pT1 PTC and 118 pT2 PTC met the selection criteria. Only 18% (n = 12) of pT1 PTC patients initially managed with hemithyroidectomy were recommended completion thyroidectomy. Mean tumour diameter was the only variable differing between groups (p = 0.003). pT2 patients were recommended completion thyroidectomy in 66% (n = 16) of instances. No measured variable explained the difference in recommendation. pT1 patients initially managed with total thyroidectomy were not recommended RAI in 71% (n = 55) of cases with T1a status (p = 0.001) and diameter (p = 0.001) as statistically different variables. For pT2 patients, 60% (n = 41) were recommended RAI post-total thyroidectomy, with no differences observed among groups. The majority of MDT recommendations were concordant for patients with similar measurable characteristics. Discordant recommendations for a small group of patients were not explained by measured variables and may have been accounted for by individual patient factors. Further research into the MDT decision-making process is warranted.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript.

RESULTS

The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies.

STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

The cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: in need of change? History, challenges and future perspectives

Two decades since their inception, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' of cancer care delivery. Benefits of MDT working include improved patient outcomes, adherence to guidelines, and even economic benefits. Benefits to MDT members have also been demonstrated. An increasing body of evidence supports the use of MDTs and provides guidance on best practise. The system of MDTs in cancer care has come under increasing pressure of late, due to the increasing incidence of cancer, the popularity of MDT working, and financial pressures. This pressure has resulted in recommendations by national bodies to implement streamlining to reduce workload and improve efficiency. In the present review we examine the historical evidence for MDT working, and the scientific developments that dictate best practise. We also explore how streamlining can be safely and effectively undertaken. Finally, we discuss the future of MDT working including the integration of artificial intelligence and decision support systems and propose a new model for improving patient centredness.

Teamwork Among Medicine House Staff During Work Rounds: Development of a Direct Observation Tool

OBJECTIVE

Teamwork is integral to effective health care but difficult to evaluate. Few tools have been tested outside of classroom or medical simulation settings. Accordingly, we aimed to develop and pilot test an easy-to-use direct observation instrument for measuring teamwork among medical house staff.

METHODS

We performed direct observations of 18 inpatient medicine house staff teams at a teaching hospital using an instrument constructed from existing teamwork tools, expert panel review, and pilot testing. We examined differences across teams using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic. We examined interrater reliability with the κ statistic, domain scales using Cronbach α, and construct validity using correlation and multivariable regression analyses of quality and utilization metrics. Observers rated team performance before and after providing feedback to 12 of the 18 team leaders and assessed changes in team performance using paired two-tailed t tests.

RESULTS

We found variation in team performance in the situation monitoring, mutual support, and communication domains. The instrument evidenced good interrater reliability among concurrent, independent observers (κ = 0.7, P < 0.001). It had satisfactory face validity based on expert panel review and the assessments of resident team leaders. Construct validity was supported by a positive correlation between team performance and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems physician communication score (r = 0.6, P = 0.03). Providing resident physicians with information about their teams' performance was associated with improved mean performance in follow-up observations (3.6-3.8/4.0, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct observation of teamwork behaviors by medicine house staff on ward rounds is feasible and feedback may improve performance.

Virtual Clinical and Precision Medicine Tumor Boards, a Cloud-based Platform-mediated Implementation of Multidisciplinary Reviews among Oncology Centers in the Covid-19 Era: an Observational Study Protocol

Background

Multidisciplinary tumor boards play a pivotal role in the patient-centered clinical management and in the decision-making process to provide best evidence-based, diagnostic, and therapeutic care to patients with cancer. Among the barriers to achieve an efficient multidisciplinary tumor board, lack of time and geographical distance play a major role. Therefore, the elaboration of an efficient virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (VMTB) is a key point to successfully obtain an oncology team and implement a network among health professionals and institutions. This need is stronger than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

This paper presents a research protocol for an observational study focused on exploring the structuring process and the implementation of a multi-institutional VMTB in Sicily, Italy. Other endpoints include analysis of cooperation between participants, adherence to guidelines, patients’ outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Methods

This protocol encompasses a pragmatic, observational, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective trial. The study’s programmed duration is 5 years, with a half-yearly analysis of the primary and secondary objectives’ measurements. Oncology care health professionals from various oncology subspecialties at oncology departments in multiple hospitals (academic and general hospitals as well as tertiary centers and community hospitals) are involved in a nonhierarchic manner. VMTB employs an innovative, virtual, cloud-based platform to share anonymized medical data that are discussed via a videoconferencing system both satisfying security criteria and compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Results

The protocol is part of a larger research project on communication and multidisciplinary collaboration in oncology units and departments spread in the Sicily region. The results of this study will particularly focus on the organization of VMTBs, involving oncology units present in different hospitals spread in the area, and creating a network to allow best patient care pathways and a hub-and-spoke relationship. The present results will also include data concerning organization skills and pitfalls, barriers, efficiency, number, and types with respect to clinical cases and customer satisfaction.

Conclusions

VMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management through a patient-centered approach. An efficient virtualization and data-banking system is potentially time-saving, a source for outcome data, and a detector of possible holes in the hull of clinical pathways. The observations and results from this VMTB study may hopefully be useful to design nonclinical and organizational interventions that enhance multidisciplinary decision-making in oncology.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26220

Improving Cancer MDT performance in Western Sydney - three years' experience

Background

While multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are now considered an essential part of cancer care decision-making, how they perform varies widely. The authors hypothesised that a comprehensive, multipronged improvement program, and associated annual member survey, could strengthen MDT performance across a whole cancer service.

Methods

The study comprised the introduction of a structured program, the Tumour Program Strengthening Initiative (TPSI) linked with an annual survey of member’s perceptions of their performance. Three iterations of the survey have been completed (2017, 2018 and 2019). Generalised estimating equations (GEEs) were used to test for a difference in the proportion of positive survey responses between 2017 and 2019 adjusted for team clustering.

Results

Twelve teams participated in TPSI. One hundred twenty-nine, 118 and 146 members completed the survey in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. Of the 17 questions that were asked in all three years, nine showed significant improvement and, of these, five were highly significant. Documenting consensus, developing Terms of Reference (TORs), establishing referral criteria and referring to clinical practice guidelines showed most improvement. Questions related to patient considerations, professional development and quality improvement (QI) activities showed no significant change.

Conclusions

TPSI resulted in sustained and significant improvement. The MDT survey not only allowed MDT members to identify their strengths and weaknesses but also provided insights for management to flag priority areas for further support. Overall program improvement reflected the strengthening of the weakest teams as well as further improvement in highly performing MDTs. Importantly, the initiative has the potential to achieve behaviour change amongst clinicians.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06203-y.

A multi-method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT-FIT) across a large integrated cancer system

BACKGROUND

Globally, Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other conditions, but variability in performance has led to demand for improvement tools. MDT-FIT (Multidisciplinary Team Feedback for Improving Teamwork) is an improvement programme developed iteratively with over 100 MDTs (≥1100 MDT-members). Complex interventions are often adapted to context, but this is rarely evaluated. We conducted a prospective evaluation of the implementation of MDT-FIT across an entire integrated care system (ICS).

METHODS

MDT-FIT was implemented within all breast cancer MDTs across an ICS in England (n = 10 MDTs; 275 medical, nursing, and administrative members). ICS managers coordinated the implementation across the three stages of MDT-FIT: set up; assessment (self-report by team members plus independent observational assessment); team-feedback and facilitated discussion to agree actions for improvement. Data were collected using process and systems logs, and interviews with a purposively selected range of participants. Analysis was theoretically grounded in evidence-based frameworks for implementation strategies and outcomes.

RESULTS

All 10 MDTs participated in MDT-FIT; 36 interviews were conducted. Data from systems and process logs covered a 9-month period. Adaptations to MDT-FIT by the ICS (e.g., coordination of team participation by ICS rather than individual hospitals; and reducing time protected for coordination) reduced Fidelity and Adoption of MDT-FIT. However, the Acceptability, Appropriateness and Feasibility of MDT-FIT remained high due to embedding implementation strategies in the development of MDT-FIT (e.g., stakeholder engagement, interactive support).

CONCLUSIONS

This is a unique and comprehensive evaluation of the multi-site implementation of a complex team improvement programme. Findings support the imperative of considering implementation strategies when designing such programmes to minimize potentially negative impacts of adaptations in "real world" settings.

Interdisciplinary care of pediatric oncology patients in Central America and the Caribbean

BACKGROUND

Interdisciplinary teamwork supports high-quality cancer care and effective utilization of limited resources. This study purposed to examine the value, structure, process, and effectiveness of interdisciplinary care (IDC) among pediatric oncology providers in low-income and middle-income countries in Central America and the Caribbean.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was disseminated to pediatric oncology providers at 5 centers participating in the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Association of Central America. The survey included previously validated items and novel questions assessing the value (importance), structure (multidisciplinary meeting attendance), process (team climate), and effectiveness (job satisfaction, quality of care and communication) of IDC.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 174 providers, including 22 oncologists, 9 pathologists, 9 radiologists, 5 radiation oncologists, 12 surgeons, 35 subspecialists, 60 nurses, 20 psychosocial providers, and 2 other staff. Participants agreed that IDC benefits team members (95%) and patients (96%). IDC structure and processes varied across the region. Multidisciplinary meeting attendance differed by center (P = .005) and discipline (P < .0001). Participants who frequently attended multidisciplinary meetings reported a more positive team climate (P = .0003). Team climate was positively associated with job satisfaction (P < .001). In multivariable analyses, team climate was predictive of an improved perception of communication between professionals (P < .0001), with families (P < .0001), and with patients (P = .0005), as well as with quality of the care environment (P = .006) and overall care quality (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all surveyed participants valued IDC, and the structure and processes supporting IDC varied by center. Associations between a collaborative professional climate, job satisfaction, and the perception of quality care encourage continued investigation and prioritization of IDC in these settings.

Onkologische Pflege im Tumorboard

Hintergrund

Die immer komplexer werdenden Therapiemöglichkeiten onkologischer Erkrankungen mit multimodalen Behandlungsstrategien überschreiten die Grenzen einer einzelnen Fachdisziplin und erfordern eine multidisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit, um eine leitliniengerechte und patientenorientierte Versorgung zu gewährleisten.

Material und Methoden

Die Durchführung eines effektives Tumorboards wird in den Zielen des Nationalen Krebsplans des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit und in den Zertifizierungsvorgaben der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft vorausgesetzt.

Ergebnisse

In Deutschland wird bisher die Fachkompetenz aus dem Bereich der onkologischen Pflege eher selten eingebunden.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Konferenz Onkologischer Kranken- und Kinderkrankenpflege (KOK), eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Sektion B in der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e. V., arbeitet intensiv an der Stärkung der Rolle onkologischer Pflege, damit onkologische Fachpflegekräfte und onkologisch spezialisierte Advanced Practice Nurses, als integraler Bestandteil des multidisziplinären Teams, wertvolle pflegefachliche Aspekte unter Einbezug der individuellen Patientenperspektive einbringen und so die Qualität der onkologischen Versorgung verbessern können.

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

OBJECTIVES

High-quality leadership and chairing skills are central components in team performance during multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. We hypothesized that the recently developed A Tumor Leadership Assessment inStrument (ATLAS) could provide relevant information to support more detailed insights into MDT chairing and leadership aspects of relevance for team feedback and targeted improvements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The observational assessment instrument ATLAS rates chairing and leadership skills during MDT meetings in 12 predefined domains that include e.g. time management, case prioritization, team involvement, discussion climate and clarity of treatment recommendations. We used ATLAS to prospectively assess 33 MDT meetings in neuro-oncology, sarcoma and hepatobiliary cancer.

RESULTS

The aspects time management, effective case prioritization and provision of clear treatment plans were found to be well-functioning, whereas facilitatation of case discussions, encouragment of team member contributions, keeping the meeting focused and ability to summarize case discussions showed variable and partly weak results.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the ATLAS instrument effectively captures various aspects of MDT leadership and chairing skills. It may thereby provide relevant information to prioritize initiatives that support and develop effective teamwork and decision-making during MDT meetings.

Measuring psychological safety in healthcare teams: developing an observational measure to complement survey methods

Background

Psychological safety is a dynamic team-level phenomenon which exists when team members believe that it is safe to take interpersonal risks. In healthcare teams, the presence of psychological safety is critical to delivering safe care. Scholars have highlighted a need for alternative measures which compliment survey-based measures of psychological safety in healthcare teams.

Methods

The exploratory phase of this study raised concerns about whether current survey measures could provide a sufficient understanding of psychological safety within healthcare teams to inform strategies to improve it. Thus, previously validated psychological safety surveys and a meeting observation measure were adapted for use in healthcare teams. First, two group feedback sessions were held with 22 healthcare professionals, as well as a systematic literature review. Then, the members of eleven healthcare teams in Ireland and The Netherlands (n = 135) took part in the pilot test of the adapted composite measure.

Results

The final composite measure has two parts: a team meeting observation measure and an adapted survey. The observation measure has 31 observable behaviours fitting seven categories: voice, defensive voice, silence behaviours, supportive, unsupportive, learning or improvement-oriented and familiarity type behaviours. The survey part consists of 19 items in three sub-dimensions related to; the team leader, other team members and the team as a whole. Three additional items capture the perceived representativeness of the observed team meeting compared to other similar meetings. Final adaptations were made in order to integrate the observation and survey measure.

Conclusions

The resulting composite measure combines the strengths of observational and survey measures and is tailored for use in healthcare teams. It is uniquely co-developed with healthcare professionals and grounded in the psychological safety and healthcare literature. This composite measure can enable longitudinal research on psychological safety and inform future research to develop and test interventions to improve psychological safety.

Use of the KT-MCC strategy to improve the quality of decision making for multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) are increasingly used to guide treatment decisions for patients with cancer, though numerous barriers to optimal MCC decision-making quality have been identified. We aimed to improve the quality of MCC decision making through the use of an implementation bundle titled the KT-MCC Strategy. The Strategy included use of discussion tools (standard case intake tool and a synoptic discussion tool), workshops, MCC team and chair training, and audit and feedback. Implementation strategies were selected using a theoretically-rooted and integrated KT approach, meaning members of the target population (MCC participants) assisted with the design and implementation of the intervention and strategies. We evaluated implementation quality of the KT-MCC Strategy and initial signals of impact on decision making quality.

METHODS

This was a before-and-after study design among 4 MCC teams. Baseline data (before-phase) were collected for a period of 2 months to assess the quality of MCC decision making. Study teams selected the intervention strategies they wished to engage with. Post-intervention data (after-phase) were collected for 4 months. Implementation quality outcomes included reach, adherence/fidelity and adaptation. We also evaluated feasibility of data management. Decision making quality was evaluated on a per-case and per-round level using the MTB-MODe and MDT-OARS tools, respectively.

RESULTS

There were a total of 149 cases and 23 MCCs observed in the before phase and 260 cases and 35 MCCs observed in the after phase. Teams implemented 3/5 strategies; adherence to selected strategies varied by MCC team. The per-round quality of MCCs improved by 11% (41.0 to 47.3, p = < 0.0001). The quality of per-case decision-making did not improve significantly (32.3 to 32.6, p = 0.781).

CONCLUSION

While per round MCC decision making quality improved significantly, per-case decision-making quality did not. We posit that the limited improvements on decision making quality may be attributed to implementation quality gaps, including a lack of uptake of and adherence to theoretically-identified implementation strategies. Our findings highlight the importance of evaluating implementation quality and processes, iterative testing, and engagement of key gatekeepers in the implementation process.

Transition to a virtual multidisciplinary tumor board during the COVID-19 pandemic: University of Pittsburgh experience

Multidisciplinary conferences (MDC) are an important component of head and neck oncologic care including diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Virtual MDC allows for improved collaboration between providers at distant sites and proper allocation of health care resources in a time of crisis. When approached systematically, a virtual MDC is feasible to design and implement in a large academic medical center with multiple satellite hospitals.

What is multidisciplinary cancer care like in practice? a protocol for a mixed-method study to characterise ambulatory oncology services in the Australian public sector

INTRODUCTION

An understanding of the real-world provision of oncology outpatient services can help maintain service quality in the face of escalating demand and tight budgets, by informing the design of interventions that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of provision. The aims of this study are threefold. First, to develop an understanding of cancer services in outpatient clinics by characterising the organisation and practice of multidisciplinary care (MDC). Second, to explore the key areas of: (a) clinical decision-making and (b) engagement with patients' supportive needs. Third, to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, the delivery of quality care in these settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A suite of mixed-methods studies will be implemented at six hospitals providing cancer outpatient clinics, with a staged roll-out. In Stage One, we will examine policies, use unstructured observations and undertake interviews with key health professionals to characterise the organisation and delivery of MDC. In Stage Two, observations of practice will continue, to deepen our understanding, and to inform two focused studies. The first will explore decision-making practices and the second will examine how staff engage with patients' needs; both studies involve interviews, to complement observation. As part of the study of supportive care, we will examine the implications of an introduction of patient-reported measures (PRMs) into care, adding surveys to interviews before and after PRMs roll-out. Data analysis will account for site-specific and cross-site issues using an adapted Qualitative Rapid Appraisal, Rigorous Analysis approach. Quantitative data from clinician surveys will be statistically analysed and triangulated with the related qualitative study findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (no. 18/207). Findings will be shared with participating hospitals and widely disseminated through publications and presentations.

Educational Value of Surgical Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Learning Non-Technical Skills - A Pilot Survey of Trainees From Two UK Deaneries

OBJECTIVE

This prospective survey study aimed to identify trainee surgeons' views on the educational potential of multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings for learning non-technical skills and relevant issues around using MDT meetings as an educational instrument.

DESIGN

An online survey questionnaire containing eight closed and three open-ended questions; was developed based on established educational theories. Responses were anonymous.

SETTING

This survey study was designed as professional project for masters in medical education degree at Warwick University. The study received ethical approval from the Biomedical Science Research and Ethics Committee of Warwick University.

PARTICIPANTS

Trainee surgeons and non-trainee junior surgical doctors within two regions (Health Education Kent Surrey and Sussex, Health Education Wessex) in the UK were invited through an email to take the survey with the help of regional heads of surgery and coordinators.

RESULTS

Twenty eight (28) out of 420 invitees completed the survey. High internal consistency was observed for questionnaire (Cronbach's α = 0.924). 71.42% (20/28) respondents attended MDT at least once a week. 75.9% of participants indicated the importance of attendance to MDT meetings with any level of involvement; passive attendance considered the least important (5/28, 17.9%, p=0.005). Trainees felt included in the team by attendance to MDT meetings (Median score 5, p=0.027). MDT meetings were considered important for learning all domains of non-technical skills for surgeons taxonomy (cumulative mean score 2.4, p=001). Respondents considered MDT as a valuable tool for learning non-technical skills for surgeons on Miller's pyramid for learning (Cumulative mean 5.6, p=0.025). Free text answers indicated agreement to the learning opportunity provided by MDT meetings. Consistent suggestions of increasing trainee participation were obtained.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate consistently positive views from trainees about the educational value of MDT meeting in general and for non-technical skills. Trainee participation, in the form of case-preparation, presentation, and discussion are recommended by respondents.

A tool to improve the performance of multidisciplinary teams in cancer care

Introduction

While multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are well established in many healthcare institutions, both how they function and their role in decision-making vary widely. This study adopted an innovative methodology to assess multidisciplinary team performance and engage teams in performance improvement strategies.

Methods

The study comprised a survey to evaluate MDT members’ perceptions of their team’s performance before the implementation of the programme and annually thereafter, and a maturity matrix designed as a self-assessment tool. Each MDT used the matrix to collectively assess its performance and identify areas for improvement.

Results

In the first cycle, 180 member surveys from 19 MDTs were completed. This provided insights into team members’ perceptions of performance. 12 of these teams continued with the study and all 12 completed the matrix. Most teams rated themselves at level one or two (low) on a scale of five for most items.

Conclusions

The MDT survey and maturity matrix have the potential to be useful for cancer care teams to identify their strengths and weaknesses and monitor performance over time and also for management to review its performance against standard criteria and to identify priority areas for improvement and further support.

Function, information, and contributions: An evaluation of national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers

National virtual multidisciplinary team meetings have been established in Swedish cancer care in response to centralized treatment of rare cancers. Though national meetings grant access to a large multidisciplinary network, we hypothesized that video-based meetings may challenge participants’ contributions to the case discussions. We investigated participants’ views and used observational tools to assess contributions from various health professionals during the multidisciplinary team meetings. Data on participants’ views were collected using an electronic survey distributed to participants in six national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers. Data from observations were obtained from the multidisciplinary team meetings for penile cancer, anal cancer, and vulvar cancer using the standardized observational tools Meeting Observational Tool and Metric of Decision-Making that assess multidisciplinary team meeting functionality and participants’ contributions to the case discussions. Participants overall rated the multidisciplinary team meetings favorably with high scores for development of individual competence and team competence. Lower scores applied to multidisciplinary team meeting technology, principles for communicating treatment recommendations, and guidelines for evaluating the meetings. Observational assessment resulted in high scores for case histories, leadership, and teamwork, whereas patient-centered care and involvement of care professionals received low scores. National virtual multidisciplinary team meetings are feasible and receive positive ratings by the participants. Case discussions cover medical perspectives well, whereas patient-centered aspects achieve less attention. Based on these findings, we discuss factors to consider to further improve treatment recommendations from national multidisciplinary team meetings.

Evaluating the reliability of a tool to measure the quality of gastrointestinal multidisciplinary cancer conferences: A generalizability study

Background

Lamb et al. developed the metric for the observation of decision-making tool (MTB-MODe) to evaluate the quality of urologic multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) in the United Kingdom. We used generalizability theory to assess the reliability of a modified version of MTB-MODe in a North American context. Specifically, we wished to determine if the tool could distinguish between high- and low-quality MCC decision-making.

Methods

Two assessors independently evaluated two MCCs (MCC1, MCC2) using the modified MTB-MODe. Generalizability theory was used to assess overall tool reliability and to identify sources most likely to contribute to variance in reliability scores. A total of 60 cases were evaluated.

Results

The overall reliability scores of MCC1 and MCC2 were 0.72 and 0.74, respectively. Inter-rater reliability scores were reasonable (>0.55) and raters did not contribute significantly to variance in reliability scores. Internal consistency of the individual MTB-MODe items was low, demonstrating that items were not highly correlated.

Conclusions

The MTB-MODe reliably assessed the quality of individual MCC cases. Raters did not contribute significantly to reliability scores, suggesting that the tool can be successfully implemented using a single rater. Low internal consistency of the MTB-MODe items demonstrates that the tool can be used to provide feedback on individual tool items. Such data can be used by stakeholders to help improve MCC quality.

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

BACKGROUND

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

BACKGROUND

Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs - including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don'ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.