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

Measuring Team Functioning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Cancer Care Team Members

Background

In a public health crisis such as COVID-19, cancer teams face significant challenges including acute work disruptions, rapid shifts in clinical practice, and burnout. Within this context, it is crucial to explore team functioning from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.

Objective

This quantitative pilot study aimed to 1) measure perceptions of multi-stakeholders on key indicators of team functioning (Team Effectiveness, TE, and Team Relational Coordination, TRC) during COVID-19 and its transition, and 2) document whether patient perceptions of TE/TRC are significantly associated with their cancer care experiences.

Methods

A descriptive design with repeated measures was used. Through convenience sampling, participants were recruited from two outpatient cancer clinics at a large university-affiliated hospital, in Montréal, Qc, Canada. Sixty-six participants (ie, 13 healthcare professionals, 40 patients, 6 informal caregivers, and 7 volunteers) completed e-measures at T1 (years 2021-2022) and n = 44 at T2 (year 2023).

Results

At T1, participants reported high perceptions of Team Effectiveness (scale 1 to 6) M = 4.47; SD = 0.7 (Mdn = 4.54; IQR: 4.06-5) and Relational Coordination (scale 1 to 5) M = 3.77; SD = 0.77 (Mdn = 3.81; IQR: 3.12-4.38) with no significant differences in perceptions across the four groups. At T2, no significant changes in TE/TRC perceptions were found. At both time points, patient perceptions of TE/TRC were significantly correlated with positive cancer care experiences (Spearman rank correlation rs ranging from 0.69 and 0.83; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study documenting perceptions of cancer team functioning amidst the pandemic as reported by multiple stakeholders. Significant relationships between patient perceptions of TE/TRC and their cancer care experiences underscore the importance of including patients' views in team functioning processes. Future work should rely on larger sample sizes to further explore key elements of optimal team functioning.

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

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.

IMPROVING CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH THYROID CANCER

OBJECTIVE

The aim: Obtaining evidence for an interdisciplinary approach to the clinical management of patients with thyroid cancer, identifying weak areas and justifying opportunities for improvement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: Data from 410 medical records of inpatients with thyroid cancer and 17 units of formalized documents of the health care facility where the study was conducted. Methods: statistical, graphic, comparative analysis, descriptive modeling, generalization.

RESULTS

Results: Patients' need for interdisciplinary care were determined by cancer itself and by the presence of 234 cases of accompanying pathologies and complications in 147 (35.9%) patients. Interdisciplinary interaction is positioned as the provision of medical care by the medical staff of the unit where the patient stays and receives expert care. Treatment planning is carried out through the advisory participation of physicians of different specialties, rather than multidisciplinary consensus. Clinical management of the patient and discharge are carried out by the attending physician. Clinical pathways are designed for the department where the patient is hospitalized. Opportunities for pre- and postoperative rehabilitation are not used. Interaction with primary and secondary care facilities is limited.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: The key directions of improving the clinical management of patients with thyroid cancer are identified: to improve the patient's clinical path, to strengthen interdisciplinary interaction of specialists through the use of digital technologies, to make clinical decision through the multidisciplinary consensus.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Developing a maturity model for cancer multidisciplinary teams

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Clinical impact of data feedback at lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A mixed methods study

AIM

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can facilitate optimal lung cancer care, yet details of structured data collection and feedback remain sparse. This study aimed to investigate data collection and the impact of feedback to lung cancer MDTs.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study using pre and post-test surveys, semistructured interviews, and observation to evaluate data collection and response to modeled data feedback in three Australian lung cancer MDTs at different locations and development stage (site A: outer metropolitan, established; site B, outer metropolitan, new; and site C, inner metropolitan, established).

RESULTS

MDT attendees (range 13-25) discussed 5-8 cases per meeting. All sites collected data prospectively (80% prepopulated) into local oncology medical information systems. The pretest survey had 17 respondents in total (88% clinicians). At sites A and C, 100% of respondents noted regular data audits, occasional at site B. Regular audit data included number of cases, stage, final diagnosis, and time to diagnosis and treatment. The post-test survey had 25 respondents in total, all clinicians. The majority (88-96%) of respondents found modeled data easy to interpret, relevant to clinical practice and the MDT, and welcomed future regular data presentations (as rated on a 5-point Likert scale mean weighted average 4.5 where > 4 demonstrates agreement). Semistructured interviews identified five major themes for MDTs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MDT.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Key characteristics of MDT data were identified and may assist with future team research and development.