Influences on multidisciplinary team decision-making

Tumor board simulation improves interdisciplinary decision-making in medical students

INTRODUCTION

Training of interdisciplinary clinical reasoning and decision-making skills, essential in daily clinical practice in oncological specialties, are still underrepresented in medical education. Therefore, at LMU University Hospital Munich, we implemented a didactically modified tumor board simulation with experts from five different disciplines (medical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and surgery) presenting patient cases into a one-week course on the basic principles of oncology. In this survey, we examined the self-assessed impact of our course on the interdisciplinary decision-making skills of medical students.

METHODS

Between November-December 2023 and January-February 2024, we surveyed two cohorts of medical students in the third year of medical school in our one-week course before and after participating in the tumor board simulation. The objective was to evaluate the self-assessed knowledge in interdisciplinary clinical decision-making, in integrating ethical considerations into clinical reasoning, and in comprehension of various professional viewpoints in interdisciplinary decision-making. Knowledge was assessed using a five-step Likert scale from 1 (no knowledge) to 5 (complete knowledge).

RESULTS

The survey was answered by 76 students before and 55 after the simulation, equaling 60-70% of all 100 course participants. Mean knowledge level regarding principles of interdisciplinary clinical decision-making improved significantly in all of the following exemplary aspects: purpose and procedure of tumor boards in clinical practice (from 2.4 ± 1.1 to 4.0 ± 1.0, Spearman's ρ = 0.6, p < 0.001), principles of dealing with ethical challenges in oncology (from 2.4 ± 1.1 to 3.4 ± 1.0, ρ = 0.4, p < 0.001), and principles of shared decision-making in oncology (2.7 ± 1.1 to 3.7 ± 1.0, ρ = 0.4, p < 0.001). Students reported that their skills in clinical decision-making and ability to discuss oncological patient cases from different professional viewpoints improved due to the teaching course.

CONCLUSION

By employing our interdisciplinary one-week course and a didactically modified tumor board simulation featuring experts from various oncological disciplines, medical students' comprehension of interdisciplinary clinical decision-making in oncology improved significantly.

The work performed through interprofessional meeting discourse: an observational study

The effectiveness of work performed through interprofessional practice is contingent on the nature and extent of communication between professionals. To date, there is little research exploring how the patterns of communication may impact interprofessional work. This study focused on communication during interprofessional meetings to better understand the interprofessional work performed through these encounters. Specifically, it examined how interactional discourse, that is, the patterns of language, influenced work performed during interprofessional meetings. A series of four interprofessional meetings in a rehabilitation unit were observed. Twenty-one participants were observed, including medical, nursing, allied health clinicians, and health professions students. Follow-up stimulated-recall interviews were conducted with five meeting participants. The data collection consisted of video and audio recordings and detailed field notes. Data were analyzed using a combination of genre analysis, a form of discourse analysis, and activity system analysis, drawing on Cultural Historical Activity Theory. This facilitated an in-depth examination of the structure of discourse and its influence on meeting outcomes. The meeting structure was defined and predictable. Two distinct forms of discourse were identified and labeled scripted and unscripted. Scripted discourse was prompted by standardized documents and facilitated the completion of organizational work. In contrast, unscripted discourse was spontaneous dialogue used to co-construct knowledge and contributed to collaboration. There was constant shifting between scripted and unscripted discourse throughout meetings which was orchestrated by experienced clinicians. Rather than fragmenting the discussion, this shifting enabled shared decision making. This research provides further insights into the interprofessional work performed during interprofessional meetings. The scripted discourse was highly influenced by artifacts (communication tools) in meetings, and these were used to ensure organizational imperatives were met. Unscripted discourse facilitated not only new insights and decisions but also social cohesion that may influence work within and outside the meeting.

How do patients make decisions in the context of a multidisciplinary team: an ethnographic study of four head and neck cancer centres in the north of England

OBJECTIVES

To describe how patients are engaged with cancer decisions in the context of multidisciplinary team (MDT) and how MDT recommendations are operationalised in the context of a shared decision.

DESIGN

Ethnographic qualitative study.

SETTING

Four head and neck cancer centres in the north of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer; non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews, and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

METHODS

Ethnographic methods including non-participant observation of MDT meetings and clinic appointments, informal interviews, field notes and formal semistructured interviews with patients and MDT members.

RESULTS

MDT discussions often conclude with a firm recommendation for treatment. When delivered to a patient in clinic, this recommendation is often accepted by the patient, but this response may result from the disempowered position in which they find themselves. While patient behaviour may thus appear to endorse clinicians' views that a paternalistic approach is desired by patients (creating a 'cycle of paternalism'), the rigidity of the MDT treatment recommendation can act as a barrier to discussion of options and the exploration of patient values.

CONCLUSIONS

The current model of MDT decision-making does not support shared decision-making and may actively undermine it. A model should be developed whereby the individual patient perspective has more input into MDT discussions, and where decisions are made on potential treatment options rather than providing a single recommendation for discussion with the patient. Deeper consideration should be given to how the MDT incorporates the patient perspective and/or delivers its discussion of options to the patient. In order to achieve these objectives, a new model of MDT working is required.

Toward an Ecologically Valid Conceptual Framework for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Settings: Need for Systems Thinking, Accountability, Decision-making, Trust, and Patient Safety Considerations in Safeguarding the Technology and Clinicians

The health care management and the medical practitioner literature lack a descriptive conceptual framework for understanding the dynamic and complex interactions between clinicians and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. As most of the existing literature has been investigating AI's performance and effectiveness from a statistical (analytical) standpoint, there is a lack of studies ensuring AI's ecological validity. In this study, we derived a framework that focuses explicitly on the interaction between AI and clinicians. The proposed framework builds upon well-established human factors models such as the technology acceptance model and expectancy theory. The framework can be used to perform quantitative and qualitative analyses (mixed methods) to capture how clinician-AI interactions may vary based on human factors such as expectancy, workload, trust, cognitive variables related to absorptive capacity and bounded rationality, and concerns for patient safety. If leveraged, the proposed framework can help to identify factors influencing clinicians' intention to use AI and, consequently, improve AI acceptance and address the lack of AI accountability while safeguarding the patients, clinicians, and AI technology. Overall, this paper discusses the concepts, propositions, and assumptions of the multidisciplinary decision-making literature, constituting a sociocognitive approach that extends the theories of distributed cognition and, thus, will account for the ecological validity of AI.

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.

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

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

Exploring implicit influences on interprofessional collaboration: a scoping review

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is fraught with multiple tensions. This is partly due to implicit biases within teams, which can reflect larger social, physical, organizational, and historical contexts. Such biases may influence communication, trust, and how collaboration is enacted within larger contexts. Despite the impact it has on teams, the influence of bias on IPC is relatively under-explored. Therefore, the authors conducted a scoping review on the influence of implicit biases within interprofessional teams. Using scoping review methodology, the authors searched several online databases. From 2792 articles, two reviewers independently conducted title/abstract screening, selecting 159 articles for full-text eligibility. From these, reviewers extracted, coded, and iteratively analyzed key data using a framework derived from socio-material theories. Authors found that many studies demonstrated how biases regarding dominance and expertise were internalized by team members, influencing collaboration in predominantly negative ways. Articles also described how team members dynamically adapted to such biases. Overall, there was a paucity of research that described material influences, often focusing on a single material element instead of the dynamic ways that humans and materials are known to interact and influence each other. In conclusion, implicit biases are relatively under-explored within IPC. The lack of research on material influences and the relationship among racial, age-related, and gender biases are critical gaps in the literature. Future research should consider the longitudinal and reciprocal nature of both positive and negative influences of bias on collaboration in diverse settings.

The Next Step Toward Patient-Centeredness in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings: An Interview Study with Professionals

Background

Patient-centeredness is essential in complex oncological multidisciplinary team decision-making. Improvement seems to be needed, while there is a lack of knowledge about health care providers’ needs for improvement.

Objective

To explore multidisciplinary team members’ perspectives on the need to improve patient-centeredness in complex decision-making, and subsequently the strategies to enhance it.

Methods

This was a qualitative descriptive interview study. The participants were twenty-four professionals who attended multidisciplinary cancer team meetings weekly. The setting was five multidisciplinary teams (gastrointestinal, gynecological, urological, head and neck, and hematological cancer) in a Dutch academic hospital. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and were analyzed with a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis.

Results

The participants voiced the need for additional information (patient-centered information, patients’s needs and preferences, individualized medical information) during the multidisciplinary team meeting, to be more patient-centered in the decision-making conversation with the patient following the meeting, and for more information following the meeting to support patient-centeredness. The strategies, which mostly originated from the needs, were categorized as organization, decision-making, and communication. The most prominent strategies were those aimed at collecting and using patient-centered information, and to facilitate the decision-making conversation with the patient following the multidisciplinary team meeting.

Conclusion

Our findings highlighted the need to improve patient-centeredness in oncological multidisciplinary teams and provided a comprehensive overview of strategies for improvement, supported by multidisciplinary team members. These strategies emphasize involvement of patients throughout the continuous process of decision-making for patients with cancer. These strategies may be implemented in other oncological multidisciplinary teams, taking in mind the local needs. Future research may help to prioritize the strategies and to determine and evaluate the effect on endpoints, like patient or professional satisfaction, shared decision-making, and on the decision that was made.

Thyroid Cancer Patients' View of Clinician Professionalism and Multidisciplinary Approach to Their Management

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to query thyroid cancer patients about 1) both the characteristics of the healthcare facilities where they were treated and the healthcare professionals that provided that treatment, as well as 2) the multidisciplinary approach used in the treatment process.

METHODS

Using a web-based survey, patients were asked to give their opinion of the healthcare centers, the professionalism of their team of specialists, and the thyroid cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDT).

RESULTS

For the 485 patients that responded, the most highly rated aspect of healthcare centers was the reduced waiting time between diagnosis and surgical intervention, an opinion expressed by 62.7% of patients. The most appreciated aspect of professionalism was the kindness shown toward patients by healthcare staff (66.6%). About 44.3% of patients were aware of the existence of thyroid cancer MDT. Most of respondents (82.7%) agreed that patients' opinions should be considered by their physicians when making treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that most patients with thyroid cancer appreciate therapeutic efficacy and kindness, and almost all are clearly in favor of using a multidisciplinary approach to their disease. Since such patients often demand to participate in the decision-making process, multidisciplinary teams should make every effort to share information with, and to integrate the opinion of, patients in the management of their thyroid disease.

Opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation - A qualitative interview study with providers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation from the providers' perspective in breast and gynecological cancer centers.

METHODS

Semi-structured guideline-based expert interviews were conducted with providers from breast and gynecological cancer centers with and without patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences. Interviews were transcribed, anonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The providers (n = 30) reported that some process steps of shared decision making can be implemented in limited form and under certain conditions in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. Above all, patients can potentially ask questions and contribute individual additional information and their preferences.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes first insights into the implementation of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. From the providers' perspective, the implementation of shared decision making seems difficult under the current circumstances. Further studies, using patient experiences, participative observations or interventional designs, are required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Despite the limited implementation of shared decision making in tumor conferences, patient participation can be advantageous as it can allow patients to ask questions and contribute individual additional information as well as their preferences.

Medical and Nonmedical Information during Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings provide treatment recommendations based on available information and collective decision-making in teams with complementary professions, disciplines and skills. We aimed to map ancillary medical and nonmedical patient information during case presentations and case discussions in MDT meetings in cancer care. Methods: Through a nonparticipant, observational approach, we mapped verbal information on medical, nonmedical and patient-related characteristics and classified these based on content. Data were collected from 336 case discussions in three MDTs for neuro-oncology, sarcoma and hepato-biliary cancer. Results: Information on physical status was presented in 48.2% of the case discussions, psychological status in 8.9% and comorbidity in 48.5% of the cases. Nonmedical factors, such as family relations, occupation, country of origin and abode were referred to in 3.6–7.7% of the cases, and patient preferences were reported in 4.2%. Conclusions: Provision of information on comorbidities in half of the cases and on patient characteristics and treatment preferences in <10% of case discussions suggest a need to define data elements and develop reporting standards to support robust MDT decision-making.

Impacts of multidisciplinary meeting case discussion on palliative care referral and end-of-life care in lung cancer: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) discussion and early palliative care are recommended in lung cancer management. The literature is unclear whether MDM discussion leads to early palliative care and improved end-of-life care.

AIMS

To evaluate impacts of discussion at an Australian lung MDM on palliative care referral, and MDM and early palliative care on aggressive end-of-life care.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted of 352 patients diagnosed with primary lung cancer from 2017 to 2019 at the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne. The primary question was whether MDM discussion influenced palliative care referrals. Secondary questions were whether MDM discussion and early palliative care reduced aggressive treatment (chemotherapy, hospitalisation, emergency department visits, intensive care admission and in-hospital death) during the last 30 days of life. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent association between MDM discussion and palliative care referral.

RESULTS

MDM discussion did not independently impact palliative care referral. There was reduced likelihood of MDM presentation in patients with metastatic disease (P < 0.0001) and poorer performance status (P = 0.025), and higher likelihood of palliative care referral in these patients (both P < 0.001). MDM discussion reduced end-of-life intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients with metastatic disease (P = 0.04). A palliative care referral-to-death interval of ≥30 days was associated with reduced hospitalisation at the end of life (P < 0.0001) and hospital deaths (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Discussion at lung MDM did not increase palliative care referral, but did reduce ICU admission among metastatic patients at the end of life. Longer palliative care referral-to-death interval was associated with reduced aggressive end-of-life care. Further research is needed in these areas.

Decision-Making in Gynaecological Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: A Cross-Sectional, Observational Study of Ovarian Cancer Cases

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are widely used across the UK to provide expert decisions and improve cancer outcomes. However, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of MDT decision-making. We investigated how decisions are made regarding the management of advanced ovarian cancer in gynaecological oncology MDT meetings.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was performed, focussing on 41/ 223 MDT case discussions across six hospitals. The validated MDT-MODe tool was adapted to increase relevance to gynaecological oncology. Case information and contributions from seven disciplines were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Spearman's correlation investigated relationships between factors and an exploratory factor analysis examined the underlying structure of MDT discussion.

RESULTS

Forty-one MDT decisions were made for patients with FIGO Stage III/IV ovarian cancer. MDT case discussions were structured by four factors: "Clinical Presentation," "Patient Factors," "Chair's Direction" and "Input from Other Specialties." Nurses were often quiet but facilitated discussion of patient factors. Junior doctors were not involved in MDT decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process in MDT meetings is driven by four underlying factors, the most significant of which represents patient history, tumour markers, images and radiologist input. Patient factors were underrepresented, and nurses should be empowered to overcome this.

Structured Data Acquisition in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Demographic changes and improvement in therapy have shifted the focus of treatment towards chronic diseases and multiple health conditions. This has caused a tremendous increase in data per patient that needs to be integrated longitudinally and across departmental silos. The general increase in the volume of data per diagnostic examination and the number of diagnostic procedures per diagnostic pathway additionally accentuate this data integration challenge.

SUMMARY

Subspecialization in medicine has led to largely autonomously organized departments with in-dependent IT ecosystems. This patchwork of IT infrastructure is not prepared to meet the data integration challenge. The resulting lack of integrated information makes the treatment of chronically ill patients increasingly difficult and error prone. Key Message: A sustainable method for data ac-quisition is needed to aid multimodal treatment and improve efficiency in healthcare.

Multidisciplinary meetings at the emergency department: A conversation-analytic study of decision-making

Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) have become an established part of many medical disciplines. Much research has been done to investigate the conditions under which they work best. This research, however, has been mostly retrospective and has had little consideration for the actual workings of MDMs. The aim of this study was to determine how Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) come to a shared decision and thus how they organize MDMs moment by moment. For this purpose we recorded twenty MDMs at the Department of Emergency Medicine (ED) of the Radboud University Medical Center in The Netherlands between November 2017 and June 2018. These meetings, contrary to those discussed in the literature, were scheduled ad-hoc as patients were seen at the ED and were conducted by small MDTs of between three and six participants, always involving a surgeon, a geriatrician, and an emergency physician. Using Conversation Analysis we found that despite the ad hoc nature of these meetings, teams collaboratively developed a structure that was grounded in everyday medical practice and reached a decision in on average slightly over 10 min. First they do a case presentation in which they share the patient's medical history and results of the physical examination and any medical tests. They subsequently agree on a differential diagnosis, and then develop a work plan. Finally, the decision is often formulated to invite confirmation and make it an interactionally shared decision. The benefit of having an MDM was evidenced by discussion of patients' frailty in particular: it was sometimes omitted during the case presentation, but then consistently requested by the geriatrician. And as we show, it was occasionally invoked as a definitive argument for deciding between surgical or conservative treatment. Our analysis suggests that MDMs can have added value in other disciplines where it is feasible to schedule meetings ad hoc.

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

PURPOSE

There are well-documented barriers to nurse participation in cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. This paper aims to identify the approaches used by Clinical Nurse Specialists (CNSs) in this setting to contribute during discussion, and to consider the impact of these approaches on the decision making process. In doing so it aims to highlight ways that CNSs can increase their influence, and enhance multidisciplinary engagement.

METHODS

This study is based on analysis of observation data from 122 MDT meetings in gynaecology, haematology and skin cancer MDTs. Field notes were reviewed, identifying 58 cases where CNSs contributed to MDT discussion. Audio recordings of the relevant sections were then transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Five approaches were used by CNSs to contribute in MDT meetings: sharing information, asking questions, providing practical suggestions, framing and using humour. These approaches influenced three key intermediary processes identified during the analysis ('successful contributions'): prompting discussion, influencing a treatment plan and facilitating teamwork. CNSs contributed successfully in cases where medical factors (such as relapsed disease or complex comorbidities) or non-medical factors (such as strong patient preference), had the potential to impact on the ability of teams to deliver treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

CNSs have an important role in cancer MDT meetings. By focusing on a subset of cases where CNSs contributed during MDT discussion, this study has provided an insight into approaches that can be adopted by CNSs to increase their influence on the decision making process, enabling teams to capitalise on their knowledge and expertise in MDT meetings.

How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care? An observational study in oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium

Background

In current cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) aim at uniting care professionals from different disciplines to decide upon the best possible treatment plan for the patients based on the available scientific evidence. In Belgium, the multidisciplinary approach is mandatory and formally regulated since 2003. Current research indicates that MDTMs are not always truly multidisciplinary, ie, with a mix of medical as well as paramedical disciplines, and that the medical profession (physicians and medical specialists) tends to dominate the interaction in MDTMs. To ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential, significant attention should be devoted to the multidisciplinary character of these meetings. The aim of this study is to explore and describe the multidisciplinary character in MDTMs and how it is actually shaped in practice in different Flemish medical oncology departments.

Methods

For this study, we carried out an observational comparative case study. We studied 59 multidisciplinary team meetings at inpatient medical oncology departments in five different Belgian hospitals (academic as well as general) and explored multidisciplinarity and how it is actually shaped in practice.

Results

The study is unique in identifying and analyzing three distinct types of MDTMs. The analysis of the three types revealed an inconsistent and, at times, contradictory picture of multidisciplinary team meetings. The findings also align with previous studies arguing that MDTMs in oncology are typically driven by doctors, with limited input of nurses and other nonmedical staff in which decisions are argued on biomedical information and far less consideration of psychosocial aspects.

Conclusion

The concept of a MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who work essentially independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Yet, this study has shown a worryingly low awareness of the true character of multidisciplinarity, particularly among medical disciplines.

An audit of urological MDT decision making in the South West of England

Objective:

The formation of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) was formalised for urological cancer services by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the 2002 Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancer guidance. This project aimed to assess the variability of MDT recommendations when presented with the same patient. It covered the type and grade of tumour, recorded stage, treatment recommendations and whether clinical trials were considered.

Materials and methods:

Anonymised details of 10 patients were sent to South West Trust MDTs in two tranches. Details included age, clinical history, haematology and biochemistry results, digital radiology, and pathology text. A panel of representative urologists and urological oncologists from the region decided on optimal treatment and key points of management decisions.

Results:

The MDTs were not consistent in decision making. This agrees with a previous survey of urologists which also showed inconsistent decision making, and under-use of clinical cues. Some decisions contradicted NICE guidelines in force at the time.

Conclusions:

MDTs are now an instrumental, integrated part of cancer management. It is vital for assurance of best patient care and best outcomes that the MDT considering and planning treatment is fully functional and well informed on the evidence base, with effective communications. This audit suggests that this is not the case. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence is not applicable to this study.

Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study

BACKGROUND

The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation.

METHODS

An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.

Perspectives of Medical Specialists From Different Disciplines on the Management of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An Interview Study

OBJECTIVE

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex autoimmune disease that can affect multiple organ systems, with specialists from many disciplines often involved, which may lead to inconsistent care. We aimed to describe the attitudes and perspectives of specialists from different medical disciplines on the management of people with SLE.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with rheumatologists (n = 16), nephrologists (n = 16), and immunologists (n = 11) providing care to adults with SLE from 19 centers across Australia in 2015. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: uncertainties in judgments (hampered by unknown and unclear etiology, inapplicable evidence, comprehending information dispersion), reflexive responses (anchoring to specialty training, anticipating outcomes, avoiding disaster, empathy for the vulnerable), overarching duty to patients (achieving patient priorities, maximizing adherence, controlling the disease, providing legitimate information, having adequate and relevant expertise), safeguarding professional opportunities (diversifying clinical skills, protecting colleagues' interests), and optimizing access to treatment (capitalizing on multidisciplinary care, acquiring breakthrough therapies).

CONCLUSION

Specialists strive to deliver evidence-informed patient-centered care, but recognize that they are anchored by their training. To overcome uncertainties in clinical management due to lack of high-quality evidence and specialty silo structures, specialists translated evidence from other disease settings and collaborated with other specialists in routine care. Developing robust evidence, tools to support evidence-informed decisions, and multidisciplinary shared-care pathways may improve the management of people with this complex disease.

Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in practice: Results from a multi-institutional quantitative survey and implications for policy change

AIM

Multidisciplinary care is advocated as best practice in cancer care. Relatively little is documented about multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting functioning, decision making and the use of evidence to support decision making in Australia. This descriptive study aimed to examine team functioning, the role of team meetings and evidence use in MDTs whose institutions are members of Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre.

METHODS

We designed a structured 40-item survey instrument about topics that included meeting purpose, organization, resources and documentation; caseload estimates; use of evidence and quality assurance; patient involvement and supportive care needs; and open-ended items about the MDTs strengths and weaknesses. Participants were invited to participate via email and the survey was administered online. Data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven MDTs from seven hospitals participated (100% response) and represented common (70%) and rare tumor groups (30%). MDT meeting purpose was reported as treatment (100%) or diagnostic decision making (88%), or for education purposes (70%). Most MDTs based treatment decisions on group consensus (92%), adherence to clinical practice guidelines (57%) or other evidence-based medicine sources (33%). The majority of MDTs discussed only a proportion of new patients at each meeting emphasizing the importance of educational aspects for other cases. Barriers exist in the availability of data to enable audit and reflection on evidence-based practice. MDT strengths included collaboration and quality discussion about patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT meetings focus on treatment decision making, with group consensus playing a significant role in translating research evidence from guidelines into clinical decision making. With a varying proportion of patients discussed in each MDT meeting, a wider audit of multidisciplinary care would enable more accurate assessments of whether treatment recommendations are in accordance with best-practice evidence.

Development and initial validation of the interprofessional team learning profiling questionnaire

Informal workplace interprofessional learning occurs as health professionals interact with each other as part of everyday work practice. Participation in interprofessional team meetings is a practical way to foster learning. However, a gap exists in the availability of a reliable and valid instrument that adequately captures the nuances of informal workplace interprofessional learning in this setting. The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to measure the different components of interprofessional learning that contribute to the quality of interprofessional learning within the interprofessional team meeting. Questionnaire items were developed from a review of the literature and interviews with health professionals. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the underlying factor structure. Two hundred and eighty-five health professionals completed a 98-item questionnaire. After elimination of unreliable items, the remaining items (n = 41) loaded onto four factors named personal and professional capacity; turning words into action-"walk the talk"; the rhetoric of interprofessional learning-"talk the talk"; and inclusiveness. Internal consistency was high for all sub-scales (Cronbach's alpha 0.91, 0.87, 0.83, and 0.83, respectively). Content, construct, and concurrent validity were assessed. The instrument developed in this study indicated consistency and robust psychometric properties. Future studies that further test the psychometric properties of the questionnaire will help to establish the usefulness of this measure in establishing evidence for the perceived effectiveness of interprofessional learning in a healthcare setting.

Insights from early experience of a Rare Disease Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team: a qualitative study

Whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) has the potential to enhance genetic diagnosis of rare disease, and is increasingly becoming part of routine clinical care in mainstream medicine. Effective translation will require ongoing efforts in a number of areas including: selection of appropriate patients, provision of effective consent, pre- and post-test genetic counselling, improving variant interpretation algorithms and practices, and management of secondary findings including those found incidentally and those actively sought. Allied to this is the need for an effective education programme for all members of clinical teams involved in care of patients with rare disease, as well as to maintain public confidence in the use of these technologies. We established a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team (GM-MDT) in 2014 to build on the experiences of earlier successful research-based WES/WGS studies, to address these needs and to review results including pertinent and secondary findings. Here we report on a qualitative study of decision-making in the GM-MDT combined with analysis of semi-structured interviews with GM-MDT members. Study findings show that members appreciate the clinical and scientific diversity of the GM-MDT and value it for education and oversight. To date, discussions have focussed on case selection including the extent and interpretation of clinical and family history information required to establish likely monogenic aetiology and inheritance model. Achieving a balance between effective use of WES/WGS - prioritising cases in a diverse and highly complex patient population where WES/WGS will be tractable - and meeting the recruitment targets of a large project is considered challenging.

Decreasing the dispatch time of medical reports sent from hospital to primary care with Lean Six Sigma

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Timely communication is important to ensure high-quality health care. To facilitate this, the Gastro Intestinal Oncology Center Amsterdam (GIOCA) stipulated to dispatch medical reports on the day of the patient's visit. However, with the increasing number of patients, administrative processes at GIOCA were under pressure, and this standard was not met for the majority of patients. The aim and objective of this study was to dispatch 90% of medical reports on the day of the patient's visit by improving the logistic process.

METHODS

To assess the main causes for a prolonged dispatch time and to design improvements actions, the roadmap offered by Lean Six Sigma (LSS) was used, consisting of five phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC roadmap).

RESULTS

Initially, 12.3% of the reports were dispatched on the day of the patient's visit. Three causes for a prolonged dispatch time were identified: (1) determining which doctors involved with treatment would compose the report; (2) the reports composed by a senior resident had to be reviewed by a medical specialist; and (3) a medical specialist had to authorize the administration to dispatch the reports. To circumvent these causes, a digital form was implemented in the electronic medical record that could be completed during the multidisciplinary team meeting. After implementation, 90.6% of the reports were dispatched on the day of the visit.

CONCLUSION

The dispatch time of reports sent from hospital to primary care can be significantly reduced using Lean Six Sigma, improving the communication between hospital and primary care.

Putting children forward for epilepsy surgery: A qualitative study of UK parents' and health professionals' decision-making experiences

BACKGROUND

Against a backdrop of recommendations for increasing access to and uptake of early surgical intervention for children with medically intractable epilepsy, it is important to understand how parents and professionals decide to put children forward for epilepsy surgery and what their decisional support needs are.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore how parents and health professionals make decisions regarding putting children forward for pediatric epilepsy surgery.

METHODS

Individual interviews were conducted with nine parents of children who had undergone pediatric epilepsy surgery at a specialist children's hospital and ten healthcare professionals who made up the children's epilepsy surgery service multidisciplinary healthcare team (MDT). Three MDT meetings were also observed. Data were analyzed thematically.

FINDINGS

Four themes were generated from analysis of interviews with parents: presentation of surgery as a treatment option, decision-making, looking back, and interventions. Three themes were generated from analysis of interviews/observations with health professionals: triangulating information, team working, and patient and family perspectives.

DISCUSSION

Parents wanted more information and support in deciding to put their child forward for epilepsy surgery. They attempted to balance the potential benefits of surgery against any risks of harm. For health professionals, a multidisciplinary approach was seen as crucial to the decision-making process. Advocating for the family was perceived to be the responsibility of nonmedical professionals.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making can be supported by incorporating families into discussions regarding epilepsy surgery as a potential treatment option earlier in the process and by providing families with additional information and access to other parents with similar experiences.

Multidisciplinary team decision-making in cancer and the absent patient: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the process of multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making with a particular focus on patient involvement.

DESIGN

Ethnographic study using direct non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

SETTING

Three head and neck cancer centres in the north of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer and staff members who attend the head and neck cancer MDT.

RESULTS

Individual members of the MDT often have a clear view of which treatment they consider to be 'best' in any clinical situation. When disagreement occurs, the MDT has to manage how it presents this difference of opinion to the patient. First, this is because the MDT members recognise that the clinician selected to present the treatment choice to the patient may 'frame' their description of the treatment options to fit their own view of best. Second, many MDT members feel that any disagreement and difference of opinion in the MDT meeting should be concealed from the patient. This leads to much of the work of decision-making occurring in the MDT meeting, thus excluding the patient. MDT members seek to counteract this by introducing increasing amounts of information about the patient into the MDT meeting, thus creating an 'evidential patient'. Often, only highly selected or very limited information of this type can be available or known and it can easily be selectively reported in order to steer the discussion in a particular direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of MDT decision-making presents significant barriers to effective patient involvement. If patients are to be effectively involved in cancer decision-making, the process of MDT decision-making needs substantial review.

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

OBJECTIVE

To develop a tool for independent observational assessment of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs), and test criterion validity, inter-rater reliability/agreement and describe performance.

DESIGN

Clinicians and experts in teamwork used a mixed-methods approach to develop and refine the tool. Study 1 observers rated pre-determined optimal/sub-optimal MDM film excerpts and Study 2 observers independently rated video-recordings of 10 MDMs.

SETTING

Study 2 included 10 cancer MDMs in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Testing was undertaken by 13 health service staff and a clinical and non-clinical observer.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tool development, validity, reliability/agreement and variability in MDT performance.

RESULTS

Study 1: Observers were able to discriminate between optimal and sub-optimal MDM performance (P ≤ 0.05). Study 2: Inter-rater reliability was good for 3/10 domains. Percentage of absolute agreement was high (≥80%) for 4/10 domains and percentage agreement within 1 point was high for 9/10 domains. Four MDTs performed well (scored 3+ in at least 8/10 domains), 5 MDTs performed well in 6-7 domains and 1 MDT performed well in only 4 domains. Leadership and chairing of the meeting, the organization and administration of the meeting, and clinical decision-making processes all varied significantly between MDMs (P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

MDT-MOT demonstrated good criterion validity. Agreement between clinical and non-clinical observers (within one point on the scale) was high but this was inconsistent with reliability coefficients and warrants further investigation. If further validated MDT-MOT might provide a useful mechanism for the routine assessment of MDMs by the local workforce to drive improvements in MDT performance.

Is there a Benefit of Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies?

Background

Multidisciplinary cancer team meetings are intended to optimize the diagnosis of a patient with a malignancy. The aim of this study was to assess the number of correct diagnoses formulated by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and whether MDT decisions were implemented.

Methods

In a prospective study, data of consecutive patients discussed at gastrointestinal oncology MDT meetings were studied, and MDT diagnoses were validated with pathology or follow-up. Factors of influence on the correct diagnosis were identified by use of a Poisson regression model. Electronic patient records were used to assess whether MDT decisions were implemented, and reasons to deviate from these decisions were hand-searched within these records.

Results

In 74 MDT meetings, 551 patients were discussed a total of 691 times. The MDTs formulated a correct diagnosis for 515/551 patients (93.4 %), and for 120/551 (21.8 %) patients the MDT changed the referral diagnosis. Of the MDT diagnoses, 451/515 (87.6 %) were validated with pathology. Patients presented to the MDT by their treating physician were 20 % more likely to receive a correct diagnosis [relative risk (RR) 1.2, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.5], while the number of patients discussed or the duration of the meeting had no influence on this (RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.99–1.0; RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.9–1.1; resp.). MDT decisions were implemented in 94.4 % of cases. Deviations of MDT decisions occurred when a patient’s wishes or physical condition were not taken into account.

Conclusions

MDTs rectify 20 % of the referral diagnoses. The presence of the treating physician is the most important factor to ensure a correct diagnosis and adherence to the treatment plan.

Recommendations for the improvement of bladder cancer quality of care in Canada: A consensus document reviewed and endorsed by Bladder Cancer Canada (BCC), Canadian Urologic Oncology Group (CUOG), and Canadian Urological Association (CUA), December 2015

This initiative was undertaken in response to concerns regarding the variation in management and in outcomes of patients with bladder cancer throughout centres and geographical areas in Canada. Population-based data have also revealed that real-life survival is lower than expected based on data from clinical trials and/or academic centres. To address these perceived shortcomings and attempt to streamline and unify treatment approaches to bladder cancer in Canada, a multidisciplinary panel of expert clinicians was convened last fall for a two-day working group consensus meeting. The panelists included urologic oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, patient representatives, a genitourinary pathologist, and an enterostomal therapy nurse. The following recommendations and summaries of supporting evidence represent the results of the presentations, debates, and discussions. Methodology

In Absentia: An Exploratory Study of How Patients Are Considered in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings

Background

Multidisciplinary team meetings and shared decision-making are potential means of delivering patient-centred care. Not much is known about how those two paradigms fit together in cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how decisions are made in multidisciplinary team meetings and whether patient perspectives are incorporated in these decisions.

Materials and Methods

A qualitative study was conducted using non-participant observation at multidisciplinary team meetings (also called tumor boards) at the University Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Two researchers recorded structured field notes from a total of N = 15 multidisciplinary team meetings. Data were analyzed using content analysis and descriptive statistics.

Results

Physicians mainly exchanged medical information and based their decision-making on this information. Individual patient characteristics or their treatment preferences were rarely considered or discussed. In the few cases where patient preferences were raised as a topic, this information did not seem to be taken into account in decision-making processes about treatment recommendations.

Conclusion

The processes in multidisciplinary team meetings we observed did not exhibit shared decision-making. Patient perspectives were absent. If multidisciplinary team meetings wish to become more patient-centred they will have to modify their processes and find a way to include patient preferences into the decision-making process.

Cancer care decision making in multidisciplinary meetings

Little research has been undertaken on the actual decision-making processes in cancer care multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs). This article was based on a qualitative observational study of two regional cancer treatment centers in New Zealand. We audiorecorded 10 meetings in which 106 patient cases were discussed. Members of the meetings categorized cases in varying ways, drew on a range of sources of authority, expressed different value positions, and utilized a variety of strategies to justify their actions. An important dimension of authority was encountered authority-the authority a clinician has because of meeting the patient. The MDM chairperson can play an important role in making explicit the sources of authority being drawn on and the value positions of members to provide more clarity to the decision-making process. Attending to issues of process, authority, and values in MDMs has the potential to improve cancer care decision making and ultimately, health outcomes.

Lung Cancer Assistant: a hybrid clinical decision support application for lung cancer care

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are becoming the model of care for cancer patients worldwide. While MDTs have improved the quality of cancer care, the meetings impose substantial time pressure on the members, who generally attend several such MDTs. We describe Lung Cancer Assistant (LCA), a clinical decision support (CDS) prototype designed to assist the experts in the treatment selection decisions in the lung cancer MDTs. A novel feature of LCA is its ability to provide rule-based and probabilistic decision support within a single platform. The guideline-based CDS is based on clinical guideline rules, while the probabilistic CDS is based on a Bayesian network trained on the English Lung Cancer Audit Database (LUCADA). We assess rule-based and probabilistic recommendations based on their concordances with the treatments recorded in LUCADA. Our results reveal that the guideline rule-based recommendations perform well in simulating the recorded treatments with exact and partial concordance rates of 0.57 and 0.79, respectively. On the other hand, the exact and partial concordance rates achieved with probabilistic results are relatively poorer with 0.27 and 0.76. However, probabilistic decision support fulfils a complementary role in providing accurate survival estimations. Compared to recorded treatments, both CDS approaches promote higher resection rates and multimodality treatments.

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.

"No decision about me without me" in the context of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative interview study

Background

Cancer care is commonly managed by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) who meet to discuss and agree treatment for individual patients. Patients do not attend MDT meetings but recommendations for treatments made in the meetings directly influence the decision-making process between patients and their responsible clinician. No research to-date has considered patient perspectives (or understanding) regarding MDTs or MDT meetings, though research has shown that failure to consider patient-based information can lead to recommendations that are inappropriate or unacceptable, and can consequently delay treatment.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with current cancer patients from one cancer centre who had either upper gastrointestinal or gynaecological cancer (n = 9) and with MDT members (n = 12) from the teams managing their care. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework approach. Key themes were identified and commonalities and discrepancies within and between individual transcripts and within and between patient and team member samples were identified and examined using the constant comparative method.

Results

Patients had limited opportunities to input to or influence the decision-making process in MDT meetings. Key explanatory factors included that patients were given limited and inconsistent information about MDTs and MDT meetings, and that MDT members had variable definitions of patient-centredness in the context of MDTs and MDT meetings. Patients that had knowledge of medicine (through current/previous employment themselves or that of a close family member) appeared to have greater understanding and access to the MDT. Reassurance emerged as a ‘benefit’ of informing patients about MDTs and MDT meetings.

Conclusions

There is a need to ensure MDT processes are both efficient and patient-centred. The operationalization of “No decision about me without me” in the context of MDT models of care – where patients are not present when recommendations for treatment are discussed - requires further consideration. Methods for ensuring that patients are actively integrated into the MDT processes are required to ensure patients have an informed choice regarding engagement, and to ensure recommendations are based on the best available patient-based and clinical evidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0488-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases: a prospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been endorsed by the Department of Health as the core model for managing chronic diseases. However, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed and the degree to which they have been absorbed into clinical practice varies widely across conditions and settings. We aimed to identify the key characteristics of chronic disease MDT meetings that are associated with decision implementation, a measure of effectiveness, and to derive a set of feasible modifications to MDT meetings to improve decision-making.

Methods

We undertook a mixed-methods prospective observational study of 12 MDTs in the London and North Thames area, covering cancer, heart failure, mental health and memory clinic teams. Data were collected by observation of 370 MDT meetings, completion of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) by 161 MDT members, interviews with 53 MDT members and 20 patients, and review of 2654 patients’ medical records. We examined the influence of patient-related factors (disease, age, sex, deprivation indicator, whether or not their preferences and other clinical/health behaviours were mentioned) and MDT features (team climate and skill mix) on the implementation of MDT treatment plans. Interview and observation data were thematically analysed and integrated to explore possible explanations for the quantitative findings, and to identify areas of diverse beliefs and practice across MDT meetings. Based on these data, we used a modified formal consensus technique involving expert stakeholders to derive a set of indications of good practice for effective MDT meetings.

Results

The adjusted odds of implementation were reduced by 25% for each additional professional group represented [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.87], though there was some evidence of a differential effect by type of disease. Implementation was more likely in MDTs with clear goals and processes and a good team climate (adjusted odds of implementation increased by 7%; 95% CI 1% to 13% for a 0.1-unit increase in TCI score). Implementation varied by disease category (with the lowest adjusted odds of implementation in mental health teams) and by patient deprivation (adjusted odds of implementation for patients in the most compared with least deprived areas were 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). We ascertained 16 key themes within five domains where there was substantial diversity in beliefs and practices across MDT meetings. These related to the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings, as well as to the role of the patient. We identified 68 potential recommendations for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings. Of these, 21 engendered both strong agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in the extent of agreement (mean absolute deviation from the median of < 1.11) among the expert consensus panel. These related to the purpose of the meetings (e.g. that agreeing treatment plans should take precedence over other objectives); meeting processes (e.g. that MDT decision implementation should be audited annually); content of the discussion (e.g. that information on comorbidities and past medical history should be routinely available); and the role of the patient (e.g. concerning the most appropriate time to discuss treatment options). Panellists from all specialties agreed that these recommendations were both desirable and feasible. We were unable to achieve consensus for 17 statements. In part, this was a result of disease-specific differences including the need to be prescriptive about MDT membership, with local flexibility deemed appropriate for heart failure and uniformity supported for cancer. In other cases, our data suggest that some processes (e.g. discussion of unrelated research topics) should be locally agreed, depending on the preferences of individual teams.

Conclusions

Substantial diversity exists in the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings. Greater multidisciplinarity is not necessarily associated with more effective decision-making and MDT decisions (as measured by decision implementation). Decisions were less likely to be implemented for patients living in more deprived areas. We identified 21 indications of good practice for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings, which expert stakeholders from a range of chronic disease specialties agree are both desirable and feasible. These are important because MDT meetings are resource-intensive and they should deliver value to the NHS and patients. Priorities for future work include research to examine whether or not the 21 indications of good practice identified in this study will lead to better decision-making; for example, incorporating the indications into a modified MDT and experimentally evaluating its effectiveness in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Other areas for further research include exploring the value of multidisciplinarity in MDT meetings and the reasons for low implementation in community mental health teams. There is also scope to examine the underlying determinants of the inequalities demonstrated in this study, for example by exploring patient preferences in more depth. Finally, future work could examine the association between MDT decision implementation and improvements in patient outcomes.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard of cancer care in many healthcare systems, but a clear definition of their format, scope of practice and operational criteria is still lacking. The aims of this review were to assess the impact of MDTs on patient outcomes in cancer care and identify their objectives, organisation and ability to engage patients in their care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the Medline database. Fifty-one peer-reviewed papers were selected from November 2005 to June 2012. MDTs resulted in better clinical and process outcomes for cancer patients, with evidence of improved survival among colorectal, head and neck, breast, oesophageal and lung cancer patients in the study period. Also, it was observed that MDTs have been associated with changes in clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological, pancreatic, gastro-oesophageal, breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, prostate, head and neck and gynaecological cancer. Evidence is consistent in showing positive consequences for patients' management in multiple dimensions, which should encourage the development of structured multidisciplinary care, minimum standards and exchange of best practices.

Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study

Background

The prevalence of multidisciplinary teams (MDT) for the delivery of cancer care is increasing globally. Evidence exists of benefits to patients and healthcare professionals. However, MDT working is time and resource intensive. This study aims to explore members’ views on existing practices of urology MDT working, and to identify potential interventions for improving the efficiency and productivity of the MDT meeting.

Methods

Members of urology MDTs across the UK were purposively recruited to participate in an online survey. Survey items included questions about the utility and efficiency of MDT meetings, and strategies for improving the efficiency of MDT meetings: treating cases by protocol, prioritising cases, and splitting the MDT into subspeciality meetings.

Results

173 MDT members participated (Oncologists n = 77, Cancer Nurses n = 54, Urologists n = 30, other specialities n = 12). 68% of respondents reported that attending the MDT meeting improves efficiency in care through improved clinical decisions, planning investigations, helping when discussing plans with patients, speciality referrals, documentation/patient records. Participants agreed that some cases including low risk, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and localised, low-grade prostate cancer could be managed by pre-agreed pathways, without full MDT review. There was a consensus that cases at the MDT meeting could be prioritised by complexity, tumour type, or the availability of MDT members. Splitting the MDT meeting was unpopular: potential disadvantages included loss of efficiency, loss of team approach, unavailability of members and increased administrative work.

Conclusion

Key urology MDT members find the MDT meeting useful. Improvements in efficiency and effectiveness may be possible by prioritising cases or managing some low-risk cases according to previously agreed protocols. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of such strategies on MDT meetings, cancer care pathways and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Using peer observers to assess the quality of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative proof of concept study

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) working is well established as the foundation for providing cancer services in the UK and elsewhere. A core activity is the weekly meeting (or case conference/tumor boards) where the treatment recommendations for individual patients are agreed. Evidence suggests that the quality of team working varies across cancer teams, and this may impact negatively on the decision-making process, and ultimately patient care. Feedback on performance by expert observers may improve performance, but can be resource-intensive to implement. This proof of concept study sought to: develop a structured observational assessment tool for use by peers (managers or clinicians from the local workforce) and explore its usability; assess the feasibility of the principle of observational assessment by peers; and explore the views of MDT members and observers about the utility of feedback from observational assessment.

Methods

For tool development, the content was informed by national clinical consensus recommendations for best practice in cancer MDTs and developed in collaboration with an expert steering group. It consisted of ten subdomains of team working observable in MDT meetings that were rated on a 10-point scale (very poor to very good). For observational assessment, a total of 19 peer observers used the tool (assessing performance in 20 cancer teams from four hospitals). For evaluation, telephone interviews with 64 team members and all peer observers were analyzed thematically.

Results

The tool was easy to use and areas for refinement were identified. Peer observers were identified and most indicated that undertaking observation was feasible. MDT members generally reported that observational assessment and feedback was useful, with the potential to facilitate improvements in team working.

Conclusion

This study suggests that observation and feedback by peers may provide a feasible and acceptable approach to enhance MDT performance. Further tool refinement and validation is required.

Multidisciplinary team meeting in digestive oncology: when opinions differ

In daily oncology, Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings are used worldwide to take every main decision. In order to improve the MDT efficiency, an analysis of decision-making process relying on patients refusing to undergo MDT proposal during presentations, in accordance with their referent specialist, was retrospectively performed in an academic and tertiary center, from 1995 to 2010. Out of 1000 patients, 0.5% refused the MDT proposal because of (1) ignorance of current evidence-based literature, (2) heterogeneous interpretations of the technical feasibility, and (3) the MDT undervaluing patient's specificities and wishes. In order to offset the MDT decision, patient needs to come from a well-off and educated background and to get the uttered support of the referent specialist. MDT conclusion is not customized because of interindividual exceptions and technical evaluations. Clinical Nurse Specialists attending to "blind" MDT meetings may help to back oncologic patient's specificities and wishes.

Case review in urology multidisciplinary team meetings: What members think of its functioning

Objective:

To improve communication and decision making between specialists, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) were introduced with the premise they would improve cancer care for patients. Minimal evidence exists on MDT functionality. We investigated MDT members’ views on barriers to optimal functioning and explored their suggestions for improvements.

Materials and methods:

Twenty urology MDT members from seven hospitals including surgeons, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and clinical nurse specialists took part in a semi-structured interview study. Interviews focused on information presentation, case discussion, factors affecting the multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) and potential improvements. Interviews were transcribed and analysed through emergent theme analysis.

Results:

Factors negatively influencing the MDMs included insufficient time to prepare cases so that enough information is available to make appropriate decisions; absence of the clinician in charge or not knowing the patient; and lack of a systematic approach to case discussion. Recommendations included protected time for case preparation, focusing on performance and comorbidities of the patient, standardising the MDT meeting and improving case selection.

Conclusions:

MDTs in urology have contributed to advances in cancer care but there is significant scope for further improvement. Implementing recommendations from team members on the front line may help drive quality in this sensitive domain.