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

Multidisciplinary team meeting Chairs' attitudes and perceived facilitators, barriers and ideal improvements to meeting functionality: A qualitative study

AIM

Oncology care provision by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is widely acknowledged as best practice. Formal team meetings, led by chairpersons, coordinate decisions on diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and review. This study addresses a gap in meeting Chairs' perspectives on factors affecting functionality across the meeting cycle, from pre-meeting patient list triage to post-meeting dissemination of recommendations.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person with Chairs within two urban geographical regions in New South Wales, Australia as part of a larger project. Though the population of oncology MDT Chairs in Australia is small, the richness and depth of data from nine Chairs were considered to be valuable knowledge in support of extant literature on meeting functionality. An integrated deductive-inductive approach was applied to data analysis.

RESULTS

Perceived facilitators, barriers, and ideals relating to pre-meeting, in-meeting, and post-meeting functionality were identified across five pre-determined analytic categories: the team; meeting infrastructure; meeting organization and logistics; patient-centered clinical decision-making, and; team governance. Key barriers included inadequate information technology, limited support staff, and lack of dedicated time for Chair duties. Corresponding facilitators included robust Information Technology infrastructure and support, provision of clinically knowledgeable MDT meeting coordinators, and formal employment recognition of Chairs' responsibilities and skill sets.

CONCLUSION

Chairs across various tumor streams develop workarounds to overcome barriers and ensure quality meeting outcomes. With more robust support they could enhance value by sharing evidence, conducting audits, and engaging in research. The findings highlight the need for healthcare systems to support tumor stream clinical networks by allocating greater resources to prioritize multidisciplinary meetings and cancer care decision-making.

Exploring the Educational Value of an Immersive Virtual Reality Method Within a Continuing Education Module in Nursing: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have explored the potential educational value of immersive 360° video in continuing education. This study explored the potential value of immersive 360° video as an acceptable educational method in a continuing education module in nursing.

METHOD

A convergent parallel mixed methods design was adopted. The setting was a nursing and midwifery school at a university. The 11 participants were RNs. Data were collected at three time points with surveys and focus groups.

RESULTS

Participants found educational value in the triggering of a deep reflective process, supported by a subsequent classroom discussion. Further, there were nuances and complexities to be considered, with a need to tailor material toward high-acuity, low-frequency, or challenging clinical events when considering content.

CONCLUSION

Immersive 360° videos are a potentially useful method for providing continuing education; however, the content must be tailored to students' learning needs. A reflective model may provide a valuable structure for discussions after the use of immersive 360° video. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2024;55(5):261-268.].

Implementation of streamlining measures in selecting and prioritising complex cases for the cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: a mini review of the recent developments

In January 2020, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in the United Kingdom, issued a permissive framework for streamlining cancer multidisciplinary (MDT) meetings. Streamlining is defined as a process whereby complex cases are prioritized for full discussion by an MDT in an MDT meeting (MDM), while the management of straightforward cases is expedited using Standards of Care (SoC). SoC are points in the pathway of patient management where there are recognized guidelines and clear clinical consensus on the options for management and should be regionally agreed and uniformly applied by regional Cancer Alliances. While this report marks the first major change in cancer MDT management since the Calman-Hine report in 1995, its implementation, nationally, has been slow with now nearly four years since its publication. It is argued however that streamlining is a necessary step in ensuring the viability of MDT processes, and therefore maintaining patient care in the current socioeconomic context of rising workload and cancer incidence, financial pressures, and workforce shortages. In this mini review, we offer a succinct summary of the recent developments around the implementation of the 2020 streamlining framework, including challenges and barriers to its implementation, and the potential future directions in this field, which we propose should increase utilisation of implementation science. We conclude that ensuring successful implementation of the framework and the SOC requires securing a buy-in from key stakeholders, including MDTs and hospital management teams, with clearly defined (a) management approaches that include triage (e.g. through a mini MDT meeting), (b) assessment of case complexity (something that directly feeds into the SOC), and (c) roles of the MDT lead and the members, while acknowledging that the SOC cannot be universally applied without the consideration of individual variations across teams and hospital Trusts.

Multidisciplinary Team Care in Pituitary Tumours

The optimal care for patients with pituitary tumours is best provided in a multidisciplinary and collaborative environment, which requires the contribution of multiple medical specialties working together. The benefits and advantages of the pituitary multidisciplinary team (MDT) are broad, and all relevant international consensus and guidelines in the field recommend that patients with pituitary tumours should always be managed in a MDT. Endocrinologists and neurosurgeons are normally the leading specialties within the pituitary MDT, supported by many other specialties with significant contributions to the diagnosis and management of pituitary tumours, including neuropathology, neuroradiology, neuro-ophthalmology, and otorhinolaryngology, among others. Here, we review the literature concerning the concepts of Pituitary MDT/Pituitary Tumour Centre of Excellence (PTCOE) in terms of their mission, goals, benefits, structure, proposed models of function, and barriers, and we also provide the views of different specialists involved in our Pituitary MDT.

Barriers And Challenges Of Multidisciplinary Teams In Oncology Management: A Scoping Review Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are integral to oncology management, involving specialised healthcare professionals who collaborate to develop individualised treatment plans for patients. However, as cancer care grows more complex, MDTs must continually adapt to better address patient needs. This scoping review will explore barriers and challenges MDTs have encountered in the past decade; and propose strategies for optimising their utilisation to overcome these obstacles and improve patient care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's framework and begin with a literature search using keywords in electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and PsychINFO, covering the period from January 2013 to December 2022 and limited to English language publications. Four independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts based on predefined inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of selected titles. Relevant references cited in the publications will also be examined. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be utilised to illustrate the methodology. Data from selected publications will be extracted, analysed, and categorised for further analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results of the scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the barriers and challenges encountered by oncology MDTs over the past decade. These findings will contribute to the existing literature and provide insights into areas that require improvement in the functioning of MDTs in oncology management. The results will be disseminated through publication in a scientific journal, which will help to share the findings with the wider healthcare community and facilitate further research and discussion in this field.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

The protocol for this scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework, available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R3Y8U.

Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.

Adherence to Quality Indicators for Breast Cancer Management in a Multidisciplinary Training Program

Background: The management of early breast cancer (BC) needs supervision and skill maintenance, and should be performed by specialists working as a team in multidisciplinary breast units. This approach aims to improve the long-term survival and quality of life of patients with BC. Methods: This was a prospective observational study including patients newly diagnosed with operable BC. The study encompassed the pre-surgical phase, throughout the diagnostic and surgical workout, and included post-therapeutic master multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) sessions, between 2019 and 2022. Results: We enrolled 280 patients with BC from eight breast units. The Senonetwork indicators regarding diagnosis, waiting time, loco-regional treatment, and adjuvant therapy were collected for each patient discussed. Conclusions: Overall, the majority of quality indicators were respected among breast units. The most critical issue referred to timing indicators: more than 30 days from MTM to surgery, more than 42 days from diagnosis to surgery, and more than 60 days from the first screening mammogram to surgery for many patients. Some aspects of the histopathological diagnosis of intraductal BC also need to be improved. Furthermore, other critical issues in our study regarded some aesthetical indicators, demonstrating low interest in these essential quality indicators.

Decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration: An observational study of multidisciplinary meetings in the intensive care unit

PURPOSE

Antibiotic therapy is commonly prescribed longer than recommended in intensive care patients (ICU). We aimed to provide insight into the decision-making process on antibiotic therapy duration in the ICU.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted, involving direct observations of antibiotic decision-making during multidisciplinary meetings in four Dutch ICUs. The study used an observation guide, audio recordings, and detailed field notes to gather information about the discussions on antibiotic therapy duration. We described the participants' roles in the decision-making process and focused on arguments contributing to decision-making.

RESULTS

We observed 121 discussions on antibiotic therapy duration in sixty multidisciplinary meetings. 24.8% of discussions led to a decision to stop antibiotics immediately. In 37.2%, a prospective stop date was determined. Arguments for decisions were most often brought forward by intensivists (35.5%) and clinical microbiologists (22.3%). In 28.9% of discussions, multiple healthcare professionals participated equally in the decision. We identified 13 main argument categories. While intensivists mostly used arguments based on clinical status, clinical microbiologists used diagnostic results in the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary decision-making regarding the duration of antibiotic therapy is a complex but valuable process, involving different healthcare professionals, using a variety of argument-types to determine the duration of antibiotic therapy. To optimize the decision-making process, structured discussions, involvement of relevant specialties, and clear communication and documentation of the antibiotic plan are recommended.

How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants' perspectives and limitations: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Virtual multidisciplinary team meetings (VMDTM) provide a standard of care that is not limited by physical distance or social restrictions. And so, when the COVID-19 pandemic imposed irrefutable social restrictions and made in-person meetings impossible, many hospitals switched to the VMDTMs. Although the pandemic might have highlighted the ease of VMDTMs, these virtual meetings have existed over the past decade, albeit less in importance. Despite their recent importance, no review has previously assessed the feasibility of VMDTMs through the eyes of the participants, the barriers participants face, nor their comparison with the in-person format. We undertook this scoping review to map existing literature and assess the perspectives of VMDTM participants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception till July 1st, 2023 to select studies that evaluated the perspectives of participants of VMDTMs regarding the core components that make up a VMDMT. Four authors, independently, extracted data from all included studies. Two authors separated data into major themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

We identified six core, intrinsic aspects of a VMDTM that are essential to its structure: (1) organization, (2) case discussion and decision-making, (3) teamwork and communication, (4) training and education, (5) technology, and (6) patient-related aspect. VMDTMs have a high overall satisfaction rating amongst participants. The preference, however, is for a hybrid model of multidisciplinary teams. VMDTMs offer support to isolated physicians, help address complex cases, and offer information that may not be available elsewhere. The periodical nature of VMDTMs is appropriate for their consideration as CMEs. Adequate technology is paramount to the sustenance of the format.

CONCLUSION

VMDTMs are efficient and offer a multidisciplinary consensus without geographical limitations. Despite certain technical and social limitations, VMDTM participants are highly satisfied with the format, although the preference lies with a hybrid model.

The Queen Square Encephalitis Multidisciplinary Team Meeting - experience over three years, pre and post the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Patients with suspected encephalitis continue to represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, even in highly resourced centres. In February 2018, we set up a monthly in-person multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT). We describe the experience and outcomes of the MDT over three years.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed to summarise patient demographics, MDT outcomes and final diagnoses.

RESULTS

Over the three-year period, 324 discussions of 238 patients took place. Cases were diverse; approximately 40% related to COVID-19 or brain infection, 40% autoimmune or other inflammatory disorders and 20% encephalitis mimics or uncertain aetiologies. Feedback from an online survey sent to referring teams and attendees highlighted the value of the MDT; 94% reported the discussion was useful and 69% reported resulting change in patient management.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary input is crucial in this challenging area, ensuring that all diagnostic avenues are explored and opening doors to novel diagnostics and therapeutics. It also supports clinicians dealing with unwell patients, including in centres where less specialist input is available, and when decisions have to be made where there is little or no evidence base.

Multidisciplinary team meetings in Hematology: a national mixed-methods study

Multidisciplinary team meetings are a current international practice in cancer care, but to date, few data exist on the specificity of its practice in hematology.In this manuscript, we present the result of the first national study, realized with quantitative and qualitative methods in France, which brings new insights in order to improve the collegial decision-making process.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects, and a specific focus on hematological particularities is warranted to truly improve process.Background Understanding the Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) process in different medical specialties facilitates the identification of core factors supporting effective MDTM work. Our mixed-methods study explores the participants' perceptions of hematology MDTMs.Design Online questionnaires collected data concerning the decision-making process, benefits and inconveniences of MDTMs for both patients and professionals. Semi-directive phone interviews were conducted and analyzed, thereby supplying qualitative data.Results A total of 205 professionals responded to the questionnaire and 22 participated in the qualitative interviews. The data indicate the unique characteristics of hematology, including a specific definition of collegiality, the frequent solicitation of expert advice and the anticipation of treatment even prior to the occurrence of MDTMs. Additional information concerning patients' wishes and psychosocial conditions are also needed. Participants emphasize the subjective aspects and the impact of the climate of MDTMs on medical decisions.Conclusion Although MDTMs are recognized to be a valuable tool, organizational and relational issues may interfere with their efficiency.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects. A specific focus on hematological particularities might be warranted to truly improve the collegial decision-making process in the context of hematology.

A novel method for continuous measurements of clinical practice guideline adherence

Introduction

Clinical practice guidelines (hereafter 'guidelines') are crucial in providing evidence-based recommendations for physicians and multidisciplinary teams to make informed decisions regarding diagnostics and treatment in various diseases, including cancer. While guideline implementation has been shown to reduce (unwanted) variability and improve outcome of care, monitoring of adherence to guidelines remains challenging. Real-world data collected from cancer registries can provide a continuous source for monitoring adherence levels. In this work, we describe a novel structured approach to guideline evaluation using real-world data that enables continuous monitoring. This method was applied to endometrial cancer patients in the Netherlands and implemented through a prototype web-based dashboard that enables interactive usage and supports various analyses.

Method

The guideline under study was parsed into clinical decision trees (CDTs) and an information standard was drawn up. A dataset from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) was used and data items from both instruments were mapped. By comparing guideline recommendations with real-world data an adherence classification was determined. The developed prototype can be used to identify and prioritize potential topics for guideline updates.

Results

CDTs revealed 68 data items for recording in an information standard. Thirty-two data items from the NCR were mapped onto information standard data items. Four CDTs could sufficiently be populated with NCR data.

Conclusion

The developed methodology can evaluate a guideline to identify potential improvements in recommendations and the success of the implementation strategy. In addition, it is able to identify patient and disease characteristics that influence decision-making in clinical practice. The method supports a cyclical process of developing, implementing and evaluating guidelines and can be scaled to other diseases and settings. It contributes to a learning healthcare cycle that integrates real-world data with external knowledge.

MDT-How it is important in rectal cancer

The concept of multidisciplinary team discussion of patient's care has been a part of routine medical practice for several decades [Monson et al. in Bull Am Coll Surg 101:45-46, 2016; NHS. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer-the manual. (Guidance on commissioning cancer services-improving outcomes). 1997.]. The idea of bringing multiple specialties and ancillary services together to help optimize patient outcomes has been implemented in several clinical arenas from burns to physical medicine and rehabilitation to oncology. In the oncology realm, multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) originated as a broad-based meeting that would permit the review and discussion of cancer patients to optimize treatment strategies [Cancer Co. Optimal Resources for Cancer Care: 2020 Standards. Chicago, IL: 2019.]. Over time, as further specialization occurred and clinical treatment algorithms have become more complex, multidisciplinary tumor boards have become more disease site specific. In this article we will discuss the importance of MDTs, specifically focusing on rectal cancer MDTs including their impact on treatment planning as well as the unique interplay of clinical specialties that provide internal quality control and improvement. Additionally, we will discuss some of the potential benefits of MDTs beyond the direct impact on patient care and review some of the challenges of implementation.

Clinical analysis of decision implementation by a multidisciplinary team in cervical cancer cases in Ganzhou, China

Objective

In this study, we evaluated the role of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) in clinical practice for cervical cancer by analyzing the development of a single-case multidisciplinary consultation for cervical cancer.

Methods

Patients in MDT consultations for cervical cancer were retrospectively analyzed for clinical information, decision content of MDT discussion, implementation, and follow-up results.

Results

Of the 392 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 359 had a first episode, of which 284 were stage IA-IIA2 (79.11%) and 75 were stage IIB-IVB (20.89%). Of these 392, 33 had a recurrence (8.42%). A total of 416 cases were analyzed, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery was recommended in 43 cases, of which 40 cases were implemented, and 36 of the 40 achieved the expected outcome. Surgical treatment was recommended in 241 cases, of which 226 underwent surgery, and 215 of them achieved the expected outcome. Radiotherapy was recommended in 31 cases, of which 26 cases underwent it, and 22 of them achieved the expected efficacy. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy was recommended in 57 cases, of which 49 underwent it, and 39 of them achieved the expected efficacy. Other treatments were recommended in 44 cases, of which 23 cases were implemented, and 10 of them achieved the expected efficacy, with statistically significant differences compared with cases without implementation (P <0.05). MDT decisions were correlated with age; the younger the patients, the higher the implementation efficiency (P <0.05). The difference between MDT expectation in all implementation and partial implementation and age was statistically significant (P <0.05). No significant difference was found between age and MDT expectation in all not fully implemented decisions (P >0.05). Some decisions were not fully implemented due to economic status and fear of certain treatments of the patient.

Conclusion

The MDT plays an important role in clinical practice such as clinical staging, treatment plan, and the complete treatment management of patients with cervical cancer, which can significantly improve the near-term treatment effect, whereas its effect on a long-term prognosis needs further clinical observation and active exploration.

Multidisciplinary team meetings in prosthetic joint infection management: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) cause substantial morbidity to patients and are extremely challenging for clinicians. Their management can include multiple operations, antibiotics, and prolonged hospital admissions. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) are increasingly used for collaborative decision-making around the management of PJIs, but thus far there has been no examination of the role of MDTM in decisions and management. This study aimed to examine interactions in a PJI MDTM to identify the dynamics in decision-making, and inter-specialty relationships more broadly.

METHODS

Twelve MDTMs over 7 months at an Australian tertiary referral hospital were video recorded, transcribed, and thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis revealed four key areas of collaborative discussion 1. Achieving Inter-specialty Balance: The role of the multidisciplinary team discussion in providing balance between specialty views, and traversing the barriers between specialty interactions. 2. Negotiating Grey zones: there was frequent discussion of the limits of tests, interpretation of symptoms, and the limits of proposed operative strategies, and the resultant tensions of balancing ideal care vs pragmatic decision-making, and divergent goals of care. 3. Tailoring Treatment: identification of individual patient factors (both physiological and behavioural) and risks into collaborative decision-making. 4. Affording Failure: creating affordances in communication to openly discuss 'failure' to eliminate infection and likely negative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTM in the management of prosthetic joint infections serve multiple functions including: achieving interdisciplinary balance; effective grey zone management, tailoring reconfigured care; and most critically, recognition of 'failure' to eliminate infection, a communicative affordance most likely leading to better care.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care pathways in a comprehensive cancer center in northern Italy

The COVID-19 pandemic burdened health care systems worldwide. Health services were reorganized with the dual purpose of ensuring the most adequate continuity of care and, simultaneously, the safety of patients and health professionals. The provision of care to patients within cancer care pathways (cCPs) was not touched by such reorganization. We investigated whether the quality of care provided by a local comprehensive cancer center has been maintained using cCP indicators. A retrospective single-cancer center study was conducted on eleven cCPs from 2019 to 2021 by comparing three timeliness indicators, five care indicators and three outcome indicators yearly calculated on incident cases. Comparisons of indicators between 2019 and 2020, and 2019 and 2021, were performed to assess the performance of cCP function during the pandemic. Indicators displayed heterogeneous significant changes attributed to all cCPs over the study period, affecting eight (72%), seven (63%) and ten (91%) out of eleven cCPs in the comparison between 2019 and 2020, 2020 and 2021, and 2019 and 2021, respectively. The most relevant changes were attributed to a negative increase in time-to-treatment surgery-related indicators and to a positive increase in the number of cases discussed by cCP team members. No variations were found attributed to outcome indicators. Significant changes did not account for clinical relevance once discussed by cCP managers and team members. Our experience demonstrated that the CP model constitutes an appropriate tool for providing high levels of quality care, even in the most critical health situations.

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings

Introduction

Nowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed.

Results

Thirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice.

Conclusion

To make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Learning from Adaptations to the COVID-19 Pandemic: How Teleconsultation Supported Cancer Care Pathways at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Northern Italy

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are recognized as the gold standard for care management of cancer patients, and during the COVID-19 pandemic they were considered a priority to be maintained. Due to pandemic-related restrictions, MDT meetings were forcibly converted from in-person to telematic format. This retrospective study evaluated the annual performance of four MDT meeting indicators (MDT members' attendance, number of discussed cases, frequency of MDT meetings, and duration) between 2019 and 2022 to report on the implementation of teleconsultation in MDT meetings related to 10 cancer care pathways (CCPs). Over the study period, MDT member participation and the number of discussed cases improved or did not change in 90% (9/10) and 80% (8/10) of the CCPs, respectively. We did not observe significant differences in any of the CCPs included in the study regarding the annual frequency and duration of MDT meeting. Considering the rapidity, extent, and intensity with which telematic tools were adopted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the results of this study showed that MDT teleconsultation supported the CCPs, and consequently, the delivery of cancer care in COVID-19 times, helping to understand the effects of telematic tools on health care performance and the parties involved.

Facilitators and barriers to conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological multidisciplinary team meeting

BACKGROUND

Optimal oncological care nowadays requires discussing every patient in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). The number of patients to be discussed is rising rapidly due to the increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer and the emergence of new multidisciplinary treatment options. This puts MDTMs under considerable time pressure. The aim of this study is therefore to identify the facilitators and barriers with regard to performing an efficient, competent and high-quality MDTM.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with Dutch medical specialists and residents participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' professional and demographic characteristics (eg, sex, medical specialist vs resident, specialty, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen medical specialists and 19 residents were interviewed. All interviewees agreed that attending and preparing MDTMs is time-consuming and indicated the need for optimal execution in order to ensure that MDTMs remain feasible in the near future. Four themes emerged that are relevant to achieving an optimal MDTM: (1) organisational aspects; (2) participants' responsibilities and requirements; (3) competences, behaviour and team dynamics and (4) meeting content. Good organisation, a sound structure and functioning information and communication technology facilitate high-quality MDTMs. Multidisciplinary collaboration and adequate communication are essential competences for participants; a lack thereof and the existence of a hierarchy are hindering factors.

CONCLUSION

Conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological MDTM is facilitated and hindered by many factors. Being aware of these factors provides opportunities for optimising MDTMs, which are under pressure due to the increase in the number of patients to discuss.