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

Physician barriers and dilemmas in the execution of clinical trials impacting decision-making in the DAHANCA 35 proton therapy trial for head and neck cancer

Background

Physicians manage multiple obligations, providing best-practice treatment and patient- centred care in the standard treatment pathway while contributing to clinical trials simultaneously. These multifaceted responsibilities may introduce barriers and dilemmas to clinical trial execution, potentially impacting the clinical trial decision- making process. This study explores physicians' barriers and dilemmas in executing clinical trials and the impact on clinical trial decision-making.

Method

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with experienced oncologists. Moreover, participant observations were performed during clinical encounters involving discussions about clinical trials. The analysis followed a structured approach: (1) transcription of data, (2) inductive text coding, (3) exploration of patterns, and (4) interpretation, leading to the results. The results were discussed and validated by the study participants.

Results

The results comprise (1) a description of the clinical practice, which presents the setting of clinical trial execution; (2) results regarding physicians' barriers and dilemmas in executing clinical trials, leading to (3) the impact on clinical trial decision- making. The results involve barriers to time constraints for clinical trial tasks, dilemmas emerging from trial requirements or deviations from standard guidelines, and challenges with providing sufficient trial communication and adequate decision-making support, balancing between a paternalistic approach and respecting patient autonomy.

Conclusion

The demanding obligations of clinical practice constitute a complex setting for executing clinical trials, resulting in numerous barriers and dilemmas that impact the decision-making process in clinical trials. The study emphasises the need for tailored clinical trial decision-making interventions to facilitate supportive, informed, and non-directive clinical trial decision-making.

Seeking help for atrial fibrillation: the role of the body in distributed decision making

We adopt Rapley's (2008) concept of distributed decision making to explore the role of the body in people's decisions to seek medical care. We conducted in-depth interviews with patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) who were taking long-term anticoagulants to prevent stroke. We interviewed seventeen patients recruited from English anticoagulant clinics using the biographic-narrative-interpretive method, and conducted thematic, structural and metaphorical analyses. This pluralistic analysis focused on how distributed decision-making was enacted through a range of socio-material, relational and embodied practices. Participants told how they experienced AF-related sensations that fluctuated in intensity and form. Some had no symptoms at all; others experienced sudden incapacitation - these experiences shaped different journeys towards seeking medical help. We draw on work by Mol (2002) to show how the body was differently observed, experienced and done across contexts as the narratives unfolded. We show that as part of a relational assemblage, involving social, material and technological actors over time, a new body-in-need-of-help was enacted and medical help sought. This body-in-need-of-help was collectively discussed, interpreted and experienced through distribution of body parts, fluids and technological representations to shape decisions. RAPLEY T., 2008. Distributed decision making: the anatomy of decisions-in-action. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 429-444. MOL A., 2002. The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press: Durham.

Patient and parent perspectives on paediatric cancer multidisciplinary team working and national advisory panels in the UK: a qualitative research study

OBJECTIVE

The concept of patient-centred care is central to the role of cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and particularly pertinent with the recent rise in number of virtual national advisory panels (NAPs) for childhood cancer in the UK. We sought to explore patient and caregiver views regarding MDT working and NAPs.

METHODS

Three focus groups were undertaken between March 2019 and January 2020.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants attended. All regarded MDTs and NAPs highly, while highlighting patient involvement in decision-making should not be diluted by this process. The importance of personalised consultations was stressed, acknowledging that information-sharing preferences may change with circumstance and time. Most participants felt they had not been actively involved in decisions, including those made following MDT or NAP discussions. Group suggestions to improve patient-centred care included a clinician knowing them presenting their case, referral proformas to include family-related factors and an advocate attending meetings to represent the patient/family view.

CONCLUSION

Several changes have been driven forward by this work, including the modification of NAP referral proformas to include additional information. Patient and parent perspectives are now embedded into a best practice model for the NAPs to promote personalised recommendations at national level.

Moral conflicts from the justice and care perspectives of japanese nurses: a qualitative content analysis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals use the ethics of justice and care to construct moral reasoning. These ethics are conflicting in nature; different value systems and orders of justice and care are applied to the cause of actual moral conflict. We aim to clarify the structure and factors of healthcare professionals' moral conflicts through the lens of justice and care to obtain suggestions for conflict resolutions.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews about experiences of moral conflict were conducted with Japanese nurses recruited using the snowball sampling method. Interviews were conducted based on the real-life moral conflict and choice interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, then analyzed based on the interpretive method of data analysis. Verbatim transcripts were read four times, first to get an overall sense of the conflict, then to understand the person's thoughts and actions that explain the conflict, and third and fourth to identify perspectives of justice and care, respectively. Each moral perspective was classified into categories according to Chally's taxonomy.

RESULTS

Among 31 responses, 2 that did not mention moral conflict were excluded, leaving 29 responses that were analyzed. These responses were classified into six cases with conflict between both justice and care perspectives or within one perspective, and into two cases without conflict between perspectives. The "rules" category of justice and the "welfare of others" category of care were included in many cases of conflict between two perspectives, and they frequently occurred in each perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The nurses in this study suggest that they make moral judgments based on moral values that are intertwined with justice and care perspectives complex manner.Organizational, professional, and patient-related factors influenced conflicts between justice and care. Additionally, multiple overlapping loyalties created conflicts within justice perspectives, and multifaceted aspects of care-provider's responsibility and patient need created conflicts within care. Decision-making biased towards one perspective can be distorted. It is important to consider ethical issues from both perspectives to resolve conflicts, especially the effective use of the ethics of care is recommended.

Cancer Care by Committee to be Superseded by Personal Physician-Patient Partnership Informed by Artificial Intelligence

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) have become the reference standard of cancer management, founded upon randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence-based guidelines. The inordinate delays inherent in awaiting formal regulatory agency approvals of novel therapeutic agents, and the rigidities and nongeneralizability of this regimented approach, often deny cancer patients timely access to effective innovative treatment. Reluctance of MTBs to accept theranostic care of patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer resulted in decades of delay in the incorporation of 177Lu-octreotate and 177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) into routine clinical oncology practice. Recent developments in immunotherapy and molecular targeted precision therapy, based on N-of-One individual multifactorial genome analyses, have greatly increased the complexity of decision-making. Burgeoning specialist workload and tight time frames now threaten to overwhelm the logistically, and emotionally, demanding MTB system. It is hypothesized that the advent of advanced artificial intelligence technology and Chatbot natural language algorithms will shift the cancer care paradigm from a MTB management model toward a personal physician-patient shared-care partnership for real-world practice of precision individualized holistic oncology.

Characteristics of orthognathic multidisciplinary team clinics in England. Part 2: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore the orthodontist's perspective of the strengths and weaknesses of their current multidisciplinary team (MDT) design for orthognathic treatment.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

This was a qualitative study using online interviews of orthodontic consultants across England. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. This was the second part of a two-part study, where the first part, an online questionnaire survey, identified the variation in design of orthognathic MDTs across England and was the source of the 19 participants for this study.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified that influenced the design of orthognathic MDTs across England. Close working relationship with the team, access to closed surgery space to conduct the MDT and access to 3D planning were identified as definite strengths of some MDT clinics. Lack of a team psychologist and long waiting lists were identified as weaknesses of some orthognathic MDTs. Teaching and training within MDT clinics were highlighted as a strength of MDTs where surgery spaces were not restricted due to the pandemic. Finally, there was general agreement about revising the orthognathic minimum dataset for records collection as it was not thought to be in the patient's best interest.

CONCLUSION

This study was able to identify key areas considered to be determinants of a successful orthognathic MDT design from the orthodontic consultant's perspective. Orthodontic consultants across England prioritised the need for a psychologist in the orthognathic MDT to improve the effectiveness of these clinics.

MDT practice determines treatment pathway for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: A multi-centre observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate decision making for patients with advanced ovarian cancer as a possible explanation of geographical variation in treatment patterns.

METHODS

We carried out a multi-centre observational study in multidisciplinary teams meetings for five major UK cancer centres. All patients presenting to five cancer centres with advanced ovarian cancer over a six-week period. The GO-MDT-MODe tool was used to provide a measure of participation and quality of case discussion for all cases of advanced ovarian cancer. MDT scores were correlated with surgical data extracted from national audit data. Data were recorded for overall MDT performance.

RESULTS

A total of 870 case discussions, including 145 cases of advanced ovarian cancer, were observed. MDTs varied in structure, format and time allocation between centres. Cluster analysis showed significant variation in quality and participation of discussion between centres (p < 0.0025) and this correlated with the proportion of patients in the wider cancer alliance undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that at least part of the variation in practice seen in the UK correlates with different behaviours within MDTs. Increasing time for discussion and encouraging participation from all staff groups may increase proportions of patients undergoing optimal treatment regimens.

Cancer treatment refusal decisions in advanced cancer: a retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVE

Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Despite advancements in anticancer therapy, some patients decide against treatment. Our study focused on characterising therapy refusal in advanced-stage malignancies and further determining if certain variables significantly correlated with refusal, compared with acceptance.

METHODS

Our inclusion criteria were patients aged 18-75 years, stage IV cancers between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 and treatment refusal (cohort 1 (C1)). A randomly selected group of patients with stage IV cancers who accepted treatment within the same timeframe was used for comparison (cohort 2 (C2)).

RESULTS

There were 508 patients in C1 and 100 patients in C2. Female sex was associated with treatment acceptance (51/100, 51.0%) than refusal (201/508, 39.6%); p=0.03. There were no associations between treatment decisions and race, marital status, BMI, tobacco use, previous cancer history, or family cancer history. Government-funded insurance was associated with treatment refusal (337/508, 66.3%) than acceptance (35/100, 35.0%); p<0.001. Age was associated with refusal (p<0.001). Average age of C1 was 63.1 years (SD:8.1) and C2 was 59.2 years (SD:9.9). Only 19.1% (97/508) in C1 were referred to palliative medicine, with 18% (18/100) in C2; p=0.8. There was a trend for patients who accepted therapy to have more comorbidities per the Charlson Comorbidity Index(p=0.08). The treatment of psychiatric disorders after cancer diagnosis was inversely associated with treatment refusal (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of psychiatric disorders after cancer diagnosis was associated with cancer treatment acceptance. Male sex, older age and government-funded health insurance were associated with treatment refusal in patients with advanced cancer. Those who refused treatment were not increasingly referred to palliative medicine.

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.

The Oesophageal Cancer Multidisciplinary Team: Can Machine Learning Assist Decision-Making?

BACKGROUND

The complexity of the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) multidisciplinary team (MDT) is continually growing, leading to rising clinician workload, time pressures, and demands. This increases heterogeneity or 'noise' within decision-making for patients with oesophageal cancer (OC) and may lead to inconsistent treatment decisions. In recent decades, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and more specifically the branch of machine learning (ML) has led to a paradigm shift in the perceived utility of statistical modelling within healthcare. Within oesophageal cancer (OC) care, ML techniques have already been applied with early success to the analyses of histological samples and radiology imaging; however, it has not yet been applied to the MDT itself where such models are likely to benefit from incorporating information-rich, diverse datasets to increase predictive model accuracy.

METHODS

This review discusses the current role the MDT plays in modern UGI cancer care as well as the utilisation of ML techniques to date using histological and radiological data to predict treatment response, prognostication, nodal disease evaluation, and even resectability within OC.

RESULTS

The review finds that an emerging body of evidence is growing in support of ML tools within multiple domains relevant to decision-making within OC including automated histological analysis and radiomics. However, to date, no specific application has been directed to the MDT itself which routinely assimilates this information.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors feel the UGI MDT offers an information-rich, diverse array of data from which ML offers the potential to standardise, automate, and produce more consistent, data-driven MDT decisions.

Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) represent an integral component of modern cancer care and have increasingly been implemented to ensure accurate and evidence-based treatment recommendations. During MDTMs, multiple and complex medical and patient-related information should be considered by a multi-professional team whose members contribute various perspectives. Registered nurses (RNs) are expected to share information on the patient perspective at MDTMs. However, research suggests that RNs' contributions to case discussions are limited and that patient perspective is generally underrepresented. Our aim was to explore RNs' views of the prerequisites for and barriers to the inclusion of the patient perspective in MDTMs in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected from four focus group interviews with 22 RNs who worked as contact nurses in Swedish cancer care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified two categories and five subcategories. The participants presented different views and expressed ambivalence about the patient perspective in MDTMs. Subcategories were related to medical versus holistic perspectives, the added value of patient perspective, and possibilities for patient contributions. The participants also discussed prerequisites for the patient perspective to be considered in MDTM decision-making process, with subcategories related to structures promoting attention to the patient perspective and determinants of RNs' contributions to case discussions in MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates various views related to the patient perspective in MDTMs and identifies a great need to clarify the RN's role. Our results indicate that if enhanced presentation of the patient perspective in MDTMs is desired, key information points and structures must be established to collect and present relevant patient-related information.

From Individuals to Systems and Contributions to Creations: Novel Framework for Mapping the Efforts of Individuals by Convening The Center of Health and Health Care

Background

People with lived health care experiences (often referred to as “patients”) are increasingly contributing to health care and are most effective when they are involved as partners who can contribute complementary knowledge alongside other stakeholders in health care.

Objective

Convening The Center aimed to bring together “people known as patients”—the center of health care—to address priorities as they defined them.

Methods

According to the original project design, an in-person gathering was to be conducted; however, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the in-person gathering was transformed into a series of digital gatherings, including an in-depth interview phase, small-group gatherings, and a collective convening of 25 participants (22 women and 3 men from the United States, India, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Pakistan). Each participant was interviewed on Zoom (Zoom Video Communications Inc), and the interview data were thematically analyzed to design a subsequent small group and then full cohort Zoom sessions. Visual note-taking was used to reinforce a shared understanding of each individual- and group-level conversation.

Results

The interviews and gatherings for Convening The Center offered unique perspectives on patient activities in research, health innovation, and problem-solving. This project further developed a novel, two-spectrum framework for assessing different experiences that patients may have or seek to gain, based on what patients actually do, and different levels of patients’ involvement, ranging from individual to community to systemic involvement.

Conclusions

The descriptors of patients in academic literature typically focus on what health care providers think patients “are” rather than on what patients “do.” The primary result of this project is a framework for mapping what patients “do” and “where” they do their work along two spectra: from creating their own projects to contributing to work initiated by others and from working at levels ranging from individual to community to systems. A better understanding of these spectra may enable researchers to more effectively engage and leverage patient expertise in health care research and innovation.

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.

Supporting Patient Autonomy in Shared Decision Making for Individuals With Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Management of head and neck cancer (HNC) can result in substantial long-term, multifaceted disability, leading to significant deficits in one's functioning and quality of life (QoL). Consequently, treatment selection is a challenging component of care for patients with HNC. Clinical care guided by shared decision making (SDM) can help address these decisional challenges and allow for a more individualized approach to treatment. However, due in part to the dominance of biomedically oriented philosophies in clinical care, engaging in SDM that reflects the individual patient's needs may be difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

In this clinical focus article, we propose that health care decisions made in the context of biopsychosocial-framed care-one that contrasts to decision making directed solely by the biomedical model-will promote patient autonomy and permit the subjective personal values, beliefs, and preferences of individuals to be considered and incorporated into treatment-related decisions. Consequently, clinical efforts that are directed toward biopsychosocial-framed SDM hold the potential to positively affect QoL and well-being for individuals with HNC.

Methodology for the development of National Multidisciplinary Management Recommendations using a multi-stage meta-consensus initiative

BACKGROUND

Methods for developing national recommendations vary widely. The successful adoption of new guidance into routine practice is dependent on buy-in from the clinicians delivering day-to-day patient care and must be considerate of existing resource constraints, as well as being aspirational in its scope. This initiative aimed to produce guidelines for the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNSCCUP) using a novel methodology to maximise the likelihood of national adoption.

METHODS

A voluntary steering committee oversaw 3 phases of development: 1) clarification of topic areas, data collection and assimilation, including systematic reviews and a National Audit of Practice; 2) a National Consensus Day, presenting data from the above to generate candidate consensus statements for indicative voting by attendees; and 3) a National Delphi Exercise seeking agreement on the candidate consensus statements, including representatives from all 58 UK Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Teams (MDT). Methodology was published online in advance of the Consensus Day and Delphi exercise.

RESULTS

Four topic areas were identified to frame guideline development. The National Consensus Day was attended by 227 participants (54 in-person and 173 virtual). Results from 7 new systematic reviews were presented, alongside 7 expert stakeholder presentations and interim data from the National Audit and from relevant ongoing Clinical Trials. This resulted in the generation of 35 statements for indicative voting by attendees which, following steering committee ratification, led to 30 statements entering the National Delphi exercise. After 3 rounds (with a further statement added after round 1), 27 statements had reached 'strong agreement' (n = 25, 2, 0 for each round, respectively), a single statement achieved 'agreement' only (round 3), and 'no agreement' could be reached for 3 statements (response rate 98% for each round). Subsequently, 28 statements were adopted into the National MDT Guidelines for HNSCCUP.

CONCLUSIONS

The described methodology demonstrated an effective multi-phase strategy for the development of national practice recommendations. It may serve as a cost-effective model for future guideline development for controversial or rare conditions where there is a paucity of available evidence or where there is significant variability in management practices across a healthcare service.

Decision-making experiences of health professionals in withdrawing treatment for children and young people: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors that influence professionals in deciding whether to withdraw treatment from a child and how decision making is managed amongst professionals as an individual and as a team.

STUDY DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of health professionals working at a UK Children's Hospital, with children with life-limiting illnesses whose treatment has been withdrawn. Data were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analysed using a thematic framework method.

RESULTS

A total of 15 participants were interviewed. Five interrelated themes with associated subthemes were generated to help understand the experiences of health professionals in decision making on withdrawing a child's treatment: (1) understanding the child's best interests, (2) multidisciplinary approach, (3) external factors, (4) psychological well-being and (5) recommendations to support shared decision making.

CONCLUSION

A shared decision-making approach should be adopted to support professionals, children and their families to make decisions collectively.

Patient experience of the acute post-surgical period following total laryngectomy during the COVID-19 era

BACKGROUND

Total laryngectomy (TL) results in permanent functional changes requiring rapid development of complex new skills. A significant portion of this learning happens in the acute post-surgical stage. There is increasing interest in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in TL; however, implementation has been difficult. COVID-19 has placed significant pressures on acute services, requiring rapid service changes for TL patients.

AIMS

To understand the acute patient experience of having a TL both before and during COVID-19.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Semi-structured interviews using a pre-designed topic guide were conducted with 10 people who had undergone a TL within the last 2 years. Participants were recruited by their speech and language therapists using purposive sampling. Braun and Clarke's iterative approach to data collection and thematic analysis was used to generate key themes from the data.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified four main themes: (1) pre-operative information-giving: 'it was just words'; (2) decision-making influences: 'I just wanted them to get it all out and get it over with'; (3) coping with adjustment to the new normal: 'this is part of me now'; and (4) the importance of relationship-building: 'when you've had something like this, you need some care and understanding'.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The need for an individualized approach to TL intervention which incorporates medical and psycho-social approaches from pre-treatment to acute discharge is vital. ERAS models should be reviewed to shift beyond the medical model alone. Rapid service changes due to COVID-19 did not contribute any major changes to the acute patient-reported experience.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject We know that ERAS protocols have the potential to improve patient outcomes following TL. However, the research does not consider anything other than the early oral feeding debate and it has therefore been difficult to implement ERAS protocols in current service models. COVID19 required head and neck cancer services to make quick changes to surgical pathways, with the potential that some ERAS protocols had been adopted inadvertently. In order to understand the impact of this, we need to understand the patient experience following TL both before and during COVID19. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper used qualitative interviews to understand the acute patient experience following TL both during and before COVID19. Findings from these interviews highlighted that people were on the most part, well prepared for the functional changes they would experience after surgery. However, people felt there were gaps in service delivery at the pre-treatment and early discharge home period. Overall, the gaps identified were from a more psycho-social need suggesting that future ERAS models of care should consider both medical and psycho-social principles to enhance patient experience and outcome. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Pre-treatment services provided to people who have a TL could be reviewed to help maximize long-term adjustment to life. Areas which could be reviewed include the method and mode of information delivery. Further work needs to be done in partnership with community services to improve the immediate discharge home experience.

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review

Background

Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs’ efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01–01-1990 to 09–11-2021), using different descriptions of ‘MDTM’ and ‘neoplasm’ as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author.

Results

Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs.

Conclusions

MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08112-0.

Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review

Background

MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type.

Results

The search returned 7930 results. 18 studies were included. In total 7 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2 to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork.

Conclusions

Several tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.

Trial registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021234326.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09369-8.

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multidisciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments.

Multidisciplinary Team Decisions in Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Service and Quality Evaluation

Objective

To investigate whether decisions made by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) were implemented and review the MDT process to identify areas for improvement.

Methods

This was a retrospective service evaluation project. Consecutive cases of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from vascular surgery MDT meetings were reviewed. MDT outputs were extracted and compared with implemented clinical management obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) to determine concordance. Cases were re-reviewed to understand reasons why planned management was not implemented.

Results

From 42 MDT meetings, 106 patients were identified. Twenty four patients were discussed at two MDTs and four patients were discussed three times. Of the 106 patients, 91 (85.8%) were treated as planned, seven (6.6%) declined planned management and opted for conservative management, four (3.8%) patients died before treatment, and four (3.8%) had alternative management for individual reasons. Of the patients discussed multiple times, 15 (53.6%) needed review by a consultant anaesthetist or additional investigations.

Conclusion

This service evaluation found a similar proportion of cases as in existing oncology literature where the MDT decision was not implemented. However, the natural history of AAA brings nuance to this finding. Facilitating patient preference is an important problem that will require future study. This evaluation resulted in local improvements to the MDT process for AAA.

•

A small proportion of decisions made by the Vascular MDT are not implemented.

•

Incorporating patient choice into the MDT decision making process poses a challenge.

•

Patients discussed multiple times may represent complexity of comorbidities.

The Importance of the Therapeutic Care Plan in Colorectal Surgery

Introduction A therapeutic plan is elaborated based on the health needs of each user, allowing a multidisciplinary team to assess diagnoses, treatment options, bonds, and optimal hospitalization time.

Objectives To identify risk management tools already used and implemented in a reference teaching hospital in the city of São Paulo and to analyze their application and risk factors in medium and large colorectal surgery.

Method Observational, longitudinal, and prospective study, with 30 patients with colorectal disease hospitalized in the surgical ward of the coloproctology service and in need of surgical treatment. In the first group, the protocol was applied with the knowledge of the researcher only, and, in the second group, with the knowledge of both the researcher and the attending physicians.

Results Sixty percent of the patients were female with a mean age of 60.93 years and body mass index (BMI) of 26.07 Kg/m2.

After surgery, patients in the first group who did not receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in the first 24 hours had an increased risk of having the event compared with those who returned to prophylaxis (p < 0.005), thus suggesting this prophylaxis was a protective factor against thromboembolic event (p = 0.006). This group also had a higher risk of hypoglycemia when no strict control was performed (p = 0.041).

Conclusion The compliance to hospital protocols with application monitoring, notedly in teaching places with annual admission of resident physicians, is a fundamental part of the adequate care of the patient combined with the implementation of therapeutic plans.

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.

Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Breast Cancer Care - An Observational Study

Purpose

Healthcare providers decide on recommendations for further treatment of patients with cancer in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). As such, communicative processes during MTBs are assumed to influence decision-making and, thereby, treatment planning. The aim of this exploratory study is to gain insights into decision-making during MTBs.

Methods

Case discussions from MTBs in breast cancer centers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were observed and audiotaped. The transcripts of the audio recordings were analyzed by procedures of conversation analysis.

Results

Based on 38 case discussions from 15 MTBs in four breast cancer centers, an action scheme for decision-making in MTBs in breast cancer care was developed. In addition, the conversational practices used by the participants during interactions were analyzed.

Conclusion

Analysis indicated that conventions in MTBs were observed during individual phases of decision-making but not for the entire process. Although exchanging multidisciplinary knowledge is an essential aspect of MTBs, this exchange does not always seem to occur in practice. The extent to which recommendations are derived from consensus during MTBs remains unclear. Thus, the study suggests developing standards for communication during MTBs to optimize decision-making and, thus, the quality of recommendation.

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.

Multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with complex extremity defects: a retrospective analysis of treatment recommendations and prognostic factors for non-implementation

Background

This study aimed to assess a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting approach for the management of patients with complex extremity defects, analyze treatment recommendations, and evaluate factors influencing non-implementation.

Methods

All patients introduced to an MDT meeting for complex extremity defects from 2015 to 2017 were included in a retrospective cohort study. Patients’ characteristics and defect causes were evaluated. Treatment recommendations (TR) of MDT meetings and subsequent implementation were reviewed (cohort with implementation of TR versus cohort with non-implementation of TR), and factors associated with non-adherence to recommendations were statistically analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

Fifty-one patients (41 male) with a mean age of 54 years were presented in 27 MDT meetings. Most of the patients (70%) suffered from reconstructive challenging or combined bone- and soft tissue defects, primarily located at the lower extremity (88%). Large skeletal defects, chronic osteomyelitis, and multi-fragmented fractures were present in 65% of cases. Forty-five percent of the patients suffered from peripheral vascular disease, necessitating surgical optimization. Of the 51 MDT decisions, 40 were implemented (78%; (32/40) limb salvage versus 22%; (8/40) limb amputation). Limb salvage was successfully achieved in 91% (29/32) of the cases. Failed limb salvages were due to flap failure (33%; 1/3), recurring periprosthetic joint infections (66%; 2/3) and concomitant reconstructive failure. Patients who underwent limb amputation, as recommended, showed proper stump healing and regained mobility with a prosthesis. Overall the MDT treatment plan was effective in 92.5% (37/40) of the patients, who adhered to the MDT treatment recommendation. In eleven patients (22%; 11/51), the MDT treatment was not implemented. MDT decisions were less likely to be implemented, if amputation was recommended (p = 0.029).

Conclusions

MDT meetings represent a valid tool to formulate individualized treatment plans, avoiding limb amputation in most patients with severe extremity defects. Recommendation for limb amputation is less likely to be implemented than plans for limb salvage.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered

A multilevel study of patient-centered care perceptions in mental health teams

Background

The successful combination of interprofessional collaboration in multidisciplinary teams with patient-centered care is necessary when it comes to delivering complex mental health services. Yet collaboration is challenging and patient-centered care is intricate to manage. This study examines correlates of patient-centered care such as team adaptivity and proactivity, collaboration, belief in interprofessional collaboration and informational role self-efficacy in multidisciplinary mental health teams.

Method

A cross-sectional multilevel survey design was used, based on self-administered bilingual validated questionnaires. Participants (N=314) were mental health professionals and managers working in public primary care or specialized mental health services, in inpatient or outpatient settings.

Results

This study showed that belief in interprofessional collaboration’s relationship with patient-centered perceptions is increased in teams with high collaboration. Collaboration is also found as a mediator, representing a process by which team adaptive and proactive behaviors are transformed into positive patient-centered perceptions.

Conclusions

Our results were in line with recent studies on team processes establishing that collaboration is a key component in multilevel examinations of predictors of patient-centered care. In terms of practice, our study showed that multidisciplinary teams should know that working hard on collaboration is an answer to the complexity of patient-centered care. Collaboration is related to the teams’ ability to respond to its challenges. It is also related to individuals’ beliefs central to the delivery of interprofessional care.

Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers' Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?

Objective

Recent studies from Germany show that a small amount of breast and gynecological cancer patients participate in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) at some cancer centers. One reason for the variation by center might be the providers’ attitudes about and experiences with MTC patient participation (MTCpp), which has not been analyzed before. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to analyze the providers’ expected or experienced feasibility concerning MTCpp at breast and gynecological cancer centers in Germany.

Methods

This paper presents cross-sectional qualitative interview data from the PINTU study. From April to December 2018, n=30 health-care providers from n=6 breast and gynecological cancer centers in North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. One-half of the providers had no experience and the other half had experience with MTCpp. Inductive and deductive coding was performed in order to capture the feasibility aspects of participation.

Results

MTCpp seems not to be feasible in routine cancer care following providers’ expected barriers and negative experiences. However, MTCpp seems to be feasible for selected cancer patients following providers’ expected opportunities and positive experiences. Our results show that both provider groups report positive and negative experiences or expectations.

Conclusion

The mixed findings regarding expected or experienced feasibility of MTCpp provide first insights into differences concerning MTCpp between organizations. Our results suggest that the providers’ perceptions (expectations and experiences) influence the possibility for patients to participate in an MTC in a cancer center.

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health‐care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients’ experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two‐week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross‐cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person‐centred and informed by patient experience.

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.

A qualitative examination of patient priorities and preferences during treatment decision-making for recurrent head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) may feel overwhelmed at the prospect of having to consider treatment options particularly if they recently completed treatment for their primary disease or when they have no options that may lead to long-term survival. The purpose of this study was to examine patient priorities and preferences during treatment decision-making for recurrent HNC.

METHODS

Individuals with newly diagnosed recurrent HNC were recruited at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Participants were interviewed using a structured interview guide. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participants, and qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 38) considered information from healthcare providers, likelihood of treatment success, and other patient-specific factors in making their treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with recurrent HNC endorse a myriad of decision-making factors, the recommendation of their healthcare provider and the likelihood of treatment success are of paramount importance. Future research should focus on methods to rapidly identify patient priorities at the time of diagnosed recurrence while respecting patient coping and communication styles.

Understanding decision-making in interprofessional team meetings through interpretative repertoires and discursive devices

Health practitioners of the geriatrics ward in a teaching hospital participate in interprofessional team meetings to agree on treatment and discharge care plans for their patients suffering from chronic illnesses and co-morbidities and in need of coordinated assessments and care. We turn to the ideas in critical discursive psychology to grow a much-needed research area of examining the language-in-use and its effects in team decision-making. Specifically we explore how healthcare team members use language to perform collaboration or disengagement, creating different subject positionings for themselves and others out of a backcloth of discursive resources and practices. We observed and transcribed 108 case discussions and analyzed them for interpretative repertoires and discursive devices. During the first half of the team discussions, the members of various health professions employed the empiricist and lifeworld interpretative repertoires and the discursive strategy of perspective-taking, articulating these through formulations and questions. We use the notion of argumentative texture to better understand why an administrative structural support like protected turn-taking in team meetings is not enough to promote interprofessional collaboration. We conclude that health practitioners can improve their contributions and subject positionings at team meetings and consequently patient-care, by identifying habitually deployed linguistic resources depicting professional knowledge, and augmenting these with Other-oriented perspectives in their repertoires. By expanding their range of discursive repertoires and recognizing that discursive practices are embedded in the bigger context or argumentative texture of institutional and societal discourses, norms, values, beliefs and practices, interprofessional teams can work to improve communication and knowledge-sharing.

Knowing what the patient wants: a hospital ethnography studying physician culture in shared decision making in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

To study physician culture in relation to shared decision making (SDM) practice.

DESIGN

Execution of a hospital ethnography, combined with interviews and a study of clinical guidelines. Ten-week observations by an insider (physician) and an outsider (student medical anthropology) observer. The use of French sociologist Bourdieu's 'Theory of Practice' and its description of habitus, field and capital, as a lens for analysing physician culture.

SETTING

The gynaecological oncology department of a university hospital in the Netherlands. Observations were executed at meetings, as well as individual patient contacts.

PARTICIPANTS

Six gynaecological oncologists, three registrars and two specialised nurses. Nine of these professionals were also interviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Common elements in physician habitus that influence the way SDM is being implemented.

RESULTS

Three main elements of physician habitus were identified. First of all, the 'emphasis on medical evidence' in group meetings as well as in patient encounters. Second 'acting as a team', which confronts the patient with the recommendations of a whole team of professionals. And lastly 'knowing what the patient wants', which describes how doctors act on what they think is best for patients instead of checking what patients actually want. Results were viewed in the light of how physicians deal with uncertainty by turning to medical evidence, as well as how the educational system stresses evidence-based medicine. Observations also highlighted the positive attitude doctors actually have towards SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain features of physician culture hinder the correct implementation of SDM. Medical training and guidelines should put more emphasis on how to elicit patient perspective. Patient preferences should be addressed better in the patient workup, for example by giving them explicit attention first. This eventually could create a physician culture that is more helpful for SDM.

The challenges of making informed decisions about treatment and trial participation following a cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study involving adolescents and young adults with cancer and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Limited attention has been paid to adolescents and young adults' (AYA's) experiences in the aftermath of a cancer diagnosis, despite this being a time when potentially life-changing decisions are made. We explored AYA's and caregivers' experiences of, and views about, making treatment and trial participation decisions following a cancer diagnosis, in order to understand, and help facilitate, informed treatment decision-making in this age group.

METHODS

Interviews were undertaken with 18 AYA diagnosed, or re-diagnosed, with cancer when aged 16-24 years, and 15 parents/caregivers. Analysis focused on the identification and description of explanatory themes.

RESULTS

Most AYA described being extremely unwell by the time of diagnosis and, consequently, experiencing difficulties processing the news. Distress and acceleration in clinical activity following diagnosis could further impede the absorption of treatment-relevant information. After referral to a specialist cancer unit, many AYA described quickly transitioning to a calm and pragmatic mind-set, and wanting to commence treatment at the earliest opportunity. Most reported seeing information about short-term side-effects of treatment as having limited relevance to their recovery-focused outlook at that time. AYA seldom indicated wanting to make choices about front-line treatment, with most preferring to defer decisions to health professionals. Even when charged with decisions about trial participation, AYA reported welcoming a strong health professional steer. Parents/caregivers attempted to compensate for AYA's limited engagement with treatment-relevant information. However, in seeking to ensure AYA received the best treatment, these individuals had conflicting priorities and information needs.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the challenging context in which AYA are confronted with decisions about front-line treatment, and reveals how their responses make it hard to ensure their decisions are fully informed. It raises questions about the direct value, to AYA, of approaches that aim to promote decision-making by improving understanding and recall of information, though such approaches may be of value to caregivers. In seeking to improve information-giving and involvement in treatment-related decision-making at diagnosis, care should be taken not to delegitimize the preference of many AYA for a directive approach from trusted clinicians.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

On foreign soil: anaesthetists at the surgical multidisciplinary team meeting

Decision making through multidisciplinary teams offers an opportunity to improve perioperative care for high-risk surgical patients. While multidisciplinary team decision making is commonplace in the NHS, involvement of perioperative physicians including anaesthetists and intensivists in this process is not well established. This article presents an exemplar of anaesthetic and intensivist involvement in a joint perioperative upper gastrointestinal cancer multidisciplinary team meeting at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford, UK. It is hoped that this model example and critical analysis will assist others who are interested in improving perioperative shared decision making in their units.

Current organization of specialist pulmonary hypertension clinics: results of an international survey

Optimal pulmonary hypertension (PH) management relies on a timely, accurate diagnosis and follow-up in specialized clinics by multidisciplinary teams that have clearly defined responsibilities and protocols. Internationally agreed criteria for expert center staff are lacking, particularly with respect to nurses, who often act as a central component of the team. This survey aimed to evaluate the current organization of PH clinics and the role of nurses. The survey (35 questions) was online February-December 2015 and was advertised at international PH nurse meetings and through international PH organizations to their corresponding clinics. In total, 126 healthcare professionals from 32 countries responded. According to respondents, 54% of clinics managed >200 patients, of whom 49% had a pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) diagnosis, on average. In terms of staff, 66% had a dedicated program administrator, 35% had one full-time nurse coordinator/practitioner/specialist, and 57% had a nurse attend outpatient clinic alongside a physician. Crucially, not all centers had a nurse in their team. The role of a nurse coordinator/practitioner/specialist varied with 51% taking patient histories/examinations and 66% managing outpatients. In 34% of clinics, nurses were involved in their own research. Protocols were available for PH therapies (81%), management of heart failure (37%) and pain (26%), and referring patients who did not have PAH/chronic thromboembolic PH back to their specialist (62%). Not all clinics are meeting all of the standards outlined in the latest guidelines with key areas of improvement being level of support from/for nurses, clear protocols, and referral pathways.

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

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

Clinicians' perception of the preventability of inpatient mortality

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess whether clinicians have an accurate perception of the preventability of their patients' mortality. Case note review estimates that approximately 5 percent of inpatient deaths are preventable. Design/methodology/approach The design involved in the study is a prospective audit of inpatient mortality in a single NHS hospital trust. The case study includes 979 inpatient mortalities. A number of outcome measures were recorded, including a Likert scale of the preventability of death- and NCEPOD-based grading of care quality. Findings Clinicians assessed only 1.4 percent of deaths as likely to be preventable. This is significantly lower than previously published values ( p<0.0001). Clinicians were also more likely to rate the quality of care as "good," and less likely to identify areas of substandard clinical or organizational management. Research limitations/implications The implications of objective assessment of the preventability of mortality are essential to drive quality improvement in this area. Practical implications There is a wide disparity between independent case note review and clinicians assessing the care of their own patients. This may be due to a "knowledge gap" between reviewers and treating clinicians, or an "objectivity gap" meaning clinicians may not recognize preventability of death of patients under their care. Social implications This study gives some insight into deficiencies in clinical governance processes. Originality/value No similar study has been performed. This has significant implications for the idea of the preventability of mortality.

Enacting person-centredness in integrated care: A qualitative study of practice and perspectives within multidisciplinary groups in the care of older people

Background

Person‐centredness is important in delivering care for long‐term conditions. New models of care aim to co‐ordinate care through integration of health and social care which require new ways of working, often remotely from the patient.

Objective

To describe how person‐centred care is enacted within multidisciplinary groups (MDGs) created as part of a new service, integrating health and social care for older people.

Methods

We followed the implementation of eight neighbourhood MDGs, observing and interviewing staff from three MDGs at different phases of programme implementation using semi‐structured topic guides.

Results

Thirty‐four MDG meetings were observed and 32 staff interviewed. Three core themes were identified which impacted on enactment of person‐centred care: the structural context of MDGs enabling person‐centred care; interaction of staff and knowledge sharing during the MDG meetings; and direct staff involvement of the person outside the MDG discussion.

Conclusions

This study provides new insights into attempts to enact person‐centred care within a new model of service delivery. Teams did what they could to enact person‐centred care in the absence of the “real” patient within MDG meetings. They were successful in delivering and co‐ordinating some aspects of care (eg prompting medication reviews, referring to social worker, health improvement and arranging further multidisciplinary team meetings for complex cases). This “absence of patients” and time pressures within the MDGs led to reliance on the “virtual” record, enhanced by additional “soft” knowledge provided by staff, rather than ensuring the patient's voice was included.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.