The role of oncologists in multidisciplinary cancer teams in the UK: an untapped resource for team leadership?

Clinical efficacy analysis of surgical treatment for spinal metastasis under the multidisciplinary team using the NOMS decision system combined with the revised Tokuhashi scoring system: a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Despite advancements in spinal metastasis surgery techniques and the rapid development of multidisciplinary treatment models, we aimed to explore the clinical efficacy of spinal metastasis surgery performed by a combined NOMS decision system-utilizing multidisciplinary team and Revised Tokuhashi scoring system, compared with the Revised Tokuhashi scoring system.

METHODS

Clinical data from 102 patients with spinal metastases who underwent surgery at three affiliated hospitals of Zunyi Medical University from December 2017 to June 2022 were analysed. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: 52 patients in the treatment group involving the combined NOMS decision system-utilizing multidisciplinary team and Revised Tokuhashi scoring system (i.e., the combined group), and 50 patients in the treatment group involving the Revised Tokuhashi scoring system only (i.e., the revised TSS-only group). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in preoperative general data or indicators between the two groups. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, average hospital stay, mortality rate, and follow-up observation indicators, including the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score, negative psychological assessment score (using the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, [SAS]), and neurological function recovery score (Frankel functional classification) were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

All 102 patients successfully completed surgery and were discharged. The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 24 months, with an average of (13.2 ± 2.4) months. The patients in the combined group experienced fewer complications such as surgical wound infections 3 patients(5.77%), intraoperative massive haemorrhage 2 patients(3.85%), cerebrospinal fluid leakage 2 patients(3.85%), deep vein thrombosis 4 patients(7.69%),and neurological damage 1 patient(1.92%), than patients in the revised TSS-only group (wound infections,11 patients(22%); intraoperative massive haemorrhage, 8 patients(16%);cerebrospinal fluid leakage,5 patients(10%);deep vein thrombosis,13 patients (26%); neurological damage,2 patients (4%). Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical wound infections, intraoperative massive haemorrhage, and deep vein thrombosis (P < 0.05). The average postoperative hospital stay in the combined group (7.94 ± 0.28 days) was significantly shorter than that in the revised TSS-only group (10.33 ± 0.30 days) (P < 0.05). Long-term follow-up (1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively) revealed better clinical outcomes in the combined group than in the revised TSS-only group in terms of VAS scores, overall KPS%, neurological function status Frankel classification, ECOG performance status, and SAS scores.(P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary team using the NOMS combined with the Revised Tokuhashi scoring system for spinal metastasis surgery showed better clinical efficacy than the sole use of the Revised Tokuhashi scoring system. This personalized, precise, and rational treatment significantly improves patient quality of life, shortens hospital stay, reduces intraoperative and postoperative complications, and lowers mortality rates.

Exploring Clinical Decision-Making among the Uro-oncology Multidisciplinary Team: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this qualitative study was to understand the clinical decision-making process among the genitourinary oncology (GU) multidisciplinary team (MDT) and how patients are engaged in the process.

DATA SOURCES

A qualitative descriptive study design was conducted and has been reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ). Members of the GU MDT were recruited from a metropolitan tertiary hospital and cancer regional center in Australia serving a population of 550,000. Semistructured interviews were conducted, and the audiorecordings were transcribed; an inductive thematic analysis was used to provide insight from multiple perspectives.

CONCLUSION

Three themes emerged: (1) the role and scope of the uro-oncology MDT, (2) lack of person-centered clinical decision-making, and (3) the barriers and facilitators. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the MDT discussions transitioned to virtual application, which was found to be convenient and efficient and improved attendance. The GU cancer MDT had a prominent biomedical focus that lacked person-centered considerations. Additional research is needed to explore how person-centered outcomes can be incorporated into the clinical decision-making process.

IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The GU MDT is increasingly important in the care of uro-oncology patients. There appears to be barriers to the implementation of person-centered discussions in the MDT. The effective delivery of multidisciplinary care is contingent on an appropriate mechanism for collaborative communication between all MDT members and patients given the limited involvement of the patient in the MDT itself.

Unmet needs in cancer patients: Creating recommendations to overcome geographical disparities in economic growth

Cancer is a major clinical, economic and societal challenge across different world regions. Effective anticancer therapies are now available, yet the impact of these treatments on the needs of patients with cancer remains questionable, since improved survival is not frequently associated with improved quality of life. In an effort to raise patients' needs at the core of anticancer therapies, the importance of nutritional support has become recognized by international scientific societies. It is recognized that the needs of patients with cancer are universal, yet the economic and societal status of any country influence the availability and implementation of nutritional care. The Middle East is a geographic area in which major differences in economic growth coexist. Consequently, it appears reasonable that international guidelines on nutritional care in oncology are reviewed to highlight those recommendations which could be universally adopted and those which may need a progressive implementation. To this end, a group of Middle East healthcare professionals working in cancer centers across the region gathered to develop a list of recommendations to be implemented in daily practice. This would translate in a likely better acceptance and delivery of nutritional care, aligning all Middle East cancer centers to the quality standards now available only in selected hospital across the region.

Physician compliance with multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations for managing gynecological cancers

Aims: Evaluation of compliance with gynecological multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) recommendations and its impact. Patients & methods: All patient records discussed in our MTB from 2018 to 2020 were analyzed. Results: We analyzed 437 MTB recommendations concerning 166 patients. Each patient was discussed an average of 2.6 (1.0-4.2) times. Of the 789 decisions, the decision was not followed 102 times (12.9%), corresponding to 85 MTB meetings (19.5%). Of these, 72 recommendations concerned therapeutic changes (70.5%), and 30 concerned non-therapeutic changes (29.5%). Of these 85 MTB decisions, 60 (71%) led to a new MTB submission. Noncompliance with MTB decisions decreased the overall survival (46 vs 138 months; p = 0.003). Conclusion: Improving compliance with MTB decisions is crucial to enhance patient outcomes.

Facilitating High Quality Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study of Australian Chairpersons' Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Team Meetings

Aim

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) are a critical element of quality care for people diagnosed with cancer. The MDM Chairperson plays a significant role in facilitating these meetings, which are often time-poor environments for clinical decision making. This study examines the perceptions of MDM Chairpersons including their role and the factors that determine the quality of a Chair, as well as the Chairperson's perception of the value of personally attending meetings.

Methods

This qualitative study used telephone interviews to explore the experiences of MDM Chairpersons from metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Using a state-wide register, 43 clinicians who chaired lung, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and breast cancer meetings were approached to participate. Thematic data analysis was used to develop and organise themes.

Results

Themes from the 16 interviews identified the perceived need for an expert and efficient MDM Chairperson with emphasis on personal rather than technical skills. The remaining themes related to the benefits of meetings to ensure quality and consistency of care; improve inter-professional relationships; and provide communication with and reassurance for patients.

Conclusion

The role of the MDM Chairperson requires expert management and leadership skills to ensure meetings support quality patient-centred care. MDMs are perceived to provide multiple benefits to both clinicians and patients. Efforts to train Chairs and to maximise clinician and patient benefits may be warranted given the costly and time-consuming nature of MDMs.

PARP inhibitors: clinical relevance and the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams on drug safety

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is considered one of the most devastating causes of death for humanity. Innovative and targeted therapies have become urgent in the treatment of this large subset of diseases. Over the last decade, the development of PARP (poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase) inhibitors has emerged as a new target in cancer therapy.

AREAS COVERED

The authors conducted a review focusing on the clinic relevance and adverse effects of the four drugs already approved by drug regulatory agencies, namely: olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib and talazoparib. Despite the targeted action of this drug class, the adverse effects should be carefully monitored for the adequate safety of cancer patients taking them. The role of multidisciplinary cancer teams is crucial to help more and more patients to benefit from these revolutionary agents.

EXPERT OPINION

PARP (poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase) inhibitors are drugs with great potential in the treatment of several types of cancer. However, their toxicity profiles often lead to treatment interruption or early discontinuation. The daily monitoring of these cancer patients by multidisciplinary cancer teams is essential for the success of therapy and for the promotion of a better quality of life.

Exploring the impact of uro-oncology multidisciplinary team meetings on patient outcomes: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are mainstay clinical management globally. Clinical guidelines state that patients should be considered for MDT review, but evidence has identified that within the specialty of uro-oncology not all patients are reviewed by an MDT. This systematic review aimed to understand the impact of uro-oncology MDT meetings on patient outcomes, to explore how patient engagement is incorporated in the process, and to identify the barriers and facilitators within an MDT.

METHODS

A systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsychINFO) were searched in EBSCOhost from January 2010 to March 2021, using a range of key search words. Studies were assessed for inclusion according to a pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken. The findings were tabulated, and a narrative synthesis undertaken.

RESULTS

373 articles were screened, and seven studies were included. The studies were conducted in a range of international countries which provided an overview of uro-oncology MDTs in different healthcare contexts. The following themes were identified: 1) MDT and clinical outcomes, 2) structure and format, 3) patient engagement in the process, and 4) barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Cancer care is constantly being challenged due to complex newer therapies, including multimodality treatments, and newer emergent broader considerations such as, oncogeriatrics, genetic counselling, and survivorship issues which should have a central place for consideration in the MDT.

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.

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.

Implementation of lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: a review of evidence-practice gaps

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is considered best practice in lung cancer care. Health care services have made significant investments in MDC through the establishment of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. This investment is likely to be sustained in future. It is imperative that MDT meetings are efficient, effective, and sufficiently nimble to introduce new innovations to enable best practice. In this article, we consider the ‘evidence-practice gaps’ in the implementation of lung cancer MDC. These gaps were derived from the recurrent limitations outlined in existing studies and reviews. We address the contributions that implementation science and quality improvement can make to bridge these gaps by increasing translation and improving the uptake of innovations by teams.

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.

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.

Exploring team working and shared leadership in multi-disciplinary cancer care

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of shared leadership to multi-disciplinary cancer care. It examines the policy background and applies concepts from shared leadership to this context. It includes discussion of the implications and recommendations. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper examining policy documents and secondary literature on the topic. While it focuses on the UK National Health Services, it is also relevant to other countries given they follow a broadly similar path with regard to multi-disciplinary working. Findings The paper suggests that shared leadership is a possible way forward for multi-disciplinary cancer care, particularly as policy developments are supportive of this. It shows that a shared perspective is likely to be beneficial to the further development of multi-disciplinary working. Research limitations/implications Adopting shared leadership needs to be explored further using appropriate empirical research. Practical implications The paper offers comments on the implications of introducing shared leadership and makes recommendations including being aware of the barriers to its implementation. Originality/value The paper offers an alternative view on leadership in the health-care context.

Defining the optimal design of the inflammatory bowel disease multidisciplinary team: results from a multicentre qualitative expert-based study

OBJECTIVE

To elicit expert views to define the aims, optimal design, format and function of an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) multidisciplinary team (MDT) with the overall purpose of enhancing the quality of MDT-driven care within an IBD service provision.

DESIGN

This study was a multicentre, prospective, qualitative study using a standard semistructured interview methodology.

PARTICIPANTS

A multidisciplinary sample of 28 semistructured interviews of which there are six consultant colorectal surgeons, six IBD nurse specialists, seven consultant gastroenterologists, five consultant radiologists and four consultant histopathologists.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 10 hospitals, which were a mixture of community hospitals and specialist IBD centres between June and October 2013.

RESULTS

Experts argued that the main goal of MDT-driven IBD care is to improve patient outcomes via sharing collective expertise in a formalised manner. Themes regarding the necessary requirements for an IBD MDT to occur included good attendance, proactive contribution, a need to define core members and appropriate and functional computer facilities. Emergent themes regarding the logistics of an effective IBD MDT included an eligibility criterion for case selection and discussion and appropriate scheduling. Themes regarding the overall design of the IBD MDT included a 'hub-and-spoke' model versus a 'single-centre' model.

CONCLUSIONS

Defining key elements for an optimal design format for the IBD MDT is necessary to ensure quality of care and reduce variation in care standards. This study has produced a set of expert-based standards that can be used to structure the IBD MDT. These standards now require larger scale validation and consensus prior to becoming a practical guideline for the management of IBD care.

Consideration of comorbidity in treatment decision making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity is very common among patients with cancer. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are increasingly the context within which cancer treatment decisions are made internationally. Little is known about how comorbidity is considered, or impacts decisions, in MDTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate previous evidence on consideration, and impact, of comorbidity in cancer MDT treatment decision making. Twenty-one original studies were included.

RESULTS

Lack of information on comorbidity in MDTs impedes the ability of MDT members to make treatment recommendations, and for those recommendations to be implemented among patients with comorbidity. Where treatment is different from that recommended due to comorbidity, it is more conservative, despite evidence that such treatment may be tolerated and effective. MDT members are likely to be unaware of the extent to which issues such as comorbidity are ignored.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTs should systematically consider treatment of patients with comorbidity. Further research is needed to assist clinicians to undertake MDT decision making that appropriately addresses comorbidity. If this were to occur, it would likely contribute to improved outcomes for cancer patients with comorbidities.

[Novel quality assurance method in oncology: the two-level, multi-disciplinary and oncotherapy oncology team system]

By now therapy decision taken by a multi-disciplinary oncology team in cancer care has become a routine method in worldwide. However, multi-disciplinary oncology team has to face more and more difficulties in keeping abreast with the fast development in oncology science, increasing expectations, and financial considerations. Naturally the not properly controlled decision mechanisms, the permanent lack of time and shortage of professionals are also hindering factors. Perhaps it would be a way out if the staff meetings and discussions of physicians in the oncology departments were transformed and provided with administrative, legal and decision credentials corresponding to those of multi-disciplinary oncology team. The new form of the oncotherapy oncoteam might be able to decide the optimal and particular treatment after previous consultation with the patient. The oncotherapy oncoteam is also suitable to carry out training and tasks of a cancer centre and by diminishing the psychological burden of the doctors it contributes to an improved patient care. This study presents the two-level multi-disciplinary and oncotherapy oncology team system at the University of Pécs including the detailed analysis of the considerations above.

Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey

BACKGROUND

Using data from a national survey, this study aimed to address whether the current model for multidisciplinary team (MDT) working is appropriate for all tumour types.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Responses to the 2009 National Cancer Action Team national survey were analysed by tumour type. Differences indicate lack of consensus between MDT members in different tumour types.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred and forty-one respondents from breast, gynaecological, colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, urological, head and neck, haematological and lung MDTs were included. One hundred and sixteen of 136 statements demonstrated consensus between respondents in different tumour types. There were no differences regarding the infrastructure for meetings and team governance. Significant consensus was seen for team characteristics, and respondents disagreed regarding certain aspects of meeting organisations and logistics, and patient-centred decision making. Haematology MDT members were outliers in relation to the clinical decision-making process, and lung MDT members disagreed with other tumour types regarding treating patients with advanced disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis reveals strong consensus between MDT members from different tumour types, while also identifying areas that require a more tailored approach, such as the clinical decision-making process, and preparation for and the organisation of MDT meetings. Policymakers should remain sensitive to the needs of health care teams working in individual tumour types.

Quality improvement in multidisciplinary cancer teams: an investigation of teamwork and clinical decision-making and cross-validation of assessments

PURPOSE

Teamworking and clinical decision-making are important in multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). Our objective is to assess the quality of information presentation and MDT members' contribution to decision-making via expert observation and self-report, aiming to cross-validate the two methods and assess the insight of MDT members into their own team performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Behaviors were scored using (i) a validated observational tool employing Likert scales with objective anchors, and (ii) a 29-question online self-report tool. Data were collected from observation of 164 cases in five MDTs, and 47 surveys from MDT members (response rate 70%). Presentation of information (case history, radiological, pathological, comorbidities, psychosocial, and patients' views) and quality of contribution to decision-making of MDT members (surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, nurses, and MDT coordinators) were analyzed via descriptive statistics and the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Correlation between observational and self-report assessments was assessed with Spearman's correlations.

RESULTS

Quality of information presentation: Case histories and radiology information rated highest; patients' views and comorbidities/psychosocial issues rated lowest (observed: Z = 14.80, P ≤ 0.001; self-report: Z = 3.70, P < 0.001). Contribution to decision-making: Surgeons and oncologists rated highest, nurses and MDT coordinators rated lowest, and others in between (observed: Z = 20.00, P ≤ 0.001; self-report: Z = 8.10, P < 0.001). Correlations between observational and self-report assessments: Median Spearman's rho = 0.74 (range = 0.66-0.91; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of teamworking and clinical decision-making in MDTs can reliably be assessed using observational and self-report metrics. MDT members have good insight into their own team performance. Such robust assessment methods could provide the basis of a toolkit for MDT team evaluation and improvement.

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.