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

What is the power of a genomic multidisciplinary team approach? A systematic review of implementation and sustainability

Due to the increasing complexity of genomic data interpretation, and need for close collaboration with clinical, laboratory, and research expertise, genomics often requires a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. This systematic review aims to establish the evidence for effectiveness of the genomic multidisciplinary team, and the implementation components of this model that can inform precision care. MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched in 2022 and 2023. We included qualitative and quantitative studies of the genomic MDT, including observational and cohort studies, for diagnosis and management, and implementation outcomes of effectiveness, adoption, efficiency, safety, and acceptability. A narrative synthesis was mapped against the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework. 1530 studies were screened, and 17 papers met selection criteria. All studies pointed towards the effectiveness of the genomic MDT approach, with 10-78% diagnostic yield depending on clinical context, and an increased yield of 6-25% attributed to the MDT. The genomic MDT was found to be highly efficient in interpretation of variants of uncertain significance, timeliness for a rapid result, made a significant impact on management, and was acceptable for adoption by a wide variety of subspecialists. Only one study utilized an implementation science based approach. The genomic MDT approach appears to be highly effective and efficient, facilitating higher diagnostic rates and improved patient management. However, key gaps remain in health systems readiness for this collaborative model, and there is a lack of implementation science based research especially addressing the cost, sustainability, scale up, and equity of access.

Care Fragmentation, Faulty Communication, and Documentation Lapses Derail a Treatment Plan

This is the second Cancer Morbidity, Mortality, and Improvement Rounds, a series of articles intended to explore the unique safety risks experienced by oncology patients through the lens of quality improvement, systems and human factors engineering, and cognitive psychology. This case describes the care of a patient who was diagnosed with locally advanced lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic; it highlights how gaps in communication and care coordination caused the patient to receive care that did not reflect the consensus of his multidisciplinary team. The discussion highlights the importance of multidisciplinary care, particularly for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, discusses factors that led to communication gaps, and examines how we should assign accountability across dispersed health care systems.Cancer Morbidity, Mortality, and Improvement Rounds is a series of articles intended to explore the unique safety risks experienced by oncology patients through the lens of quality improvement, systems and human factors engineering, and cognitive psychology. For purposes of clarity, each case focuses on a single theme, although, as is true for all medical incidents, there are almost always multiple, overlapping, contributing factors. The quality improvement paradigm used here, which focuses on root cause analyses and opportunities to improve care delivery systems, was previously outlined in this journal.

Physician-led in-hospital multidisciplinary team conferences with multiple medical specialities present - A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary Team Conferences (MDTs) are complex interventions in the modern healthcare system and they promote a model of coordinated patient care and management. However, MDTs within chronic diseases are poorly defined. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the current literature on physician-led in-hospital MDTs in chronic non-malignant diseases.

METHOD

Following the PRISMA-ScR guideline for scoping reviews, a search on MDT interventions in adult patients, with three or more medical specialties represented, was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 2790 studies, from which 8 studies were included. The majority of studies were non-randomised and focused on a single disease entity such as infective endocarditis, atrial fibrillation, IgG4-related disease, or arterial and venous thrombosis. The main reason for referral was confirmation or establishment of a diagnosis, and the MDT members were primarily from medical specialties gathered especially for the MDT. Outcomes of the included studies were grouped into process indicators and outcome indicators. Process indicators included changes in diagnostic confirmation as well as therapeutic strategy and management. All studies reporting process indicators demonstrated significant changes before and after the MDT.

CONCLUSION

MDTs within chronic diseases appeared highly heterogeneous with respect to structure, reasons for referral, and choice of outcomes. While process indicators, such as change in diagnosis, and treatment management/plan seem improved, such have not been demonstrated through outcome indicators.

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer

To date, the virtual multidisciplinary tumor boards (vMTBs) are increasingly used to achieve high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MTB team to a regional or national expert network. This review describes the process of lung cancer-specific MTBs and the transition process from face-to-face tumor boards to virtual ones. The review also focuses on the project organization's description, advantages, and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews identified five major themes for MTBs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MTB. MTB teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Virtualization reduces time spent for travel, allowing easier and timely patient discussions. This process requires a secure web platform to assure the respect of patients' privacy and presents the same unanswered problems. The implementation of vMTB also permits the implementation of networks especially in areas with geographical barriers facilitating interaction between large referral cancer centers and tertiary or community hospitals as well as easier access to clinical trial opportunities. Studies aimed to improve preparations, structure, and conduct of MTBs, research methods to monitor their performance, teamwork, and outcomes are also outlined in this article. Analysis of literature shows that MTB participants discuss 5-8 cases per meeting and that the use of a vMTB for lung cancer and in particular stage III NSCLC and complex stage IV cases is widely accepted by most health professionals. Despite still-existing gaps, overall vMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management in a patient-centered approach.

Quality indicators and excellence requirements for a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group

Multidisciplinary care is needed to decide the best therapeutic approach and to provide optimal care to patients with lung cancer (LC). Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are optimal strategies for the management of patients with LC and have been associated with better outcomes, such as an increase in quality of life and survival. The Spanish Lung Cancer Group has promoted this review about the current situation of the existing national LC-MDTs, which also offers a set of excellence requirements and quality indicators to achieve the best care in any patient with LC. Time and sufficient resources; leadership; administrative and institutional support; and recording of activity are key factors for the success of LC-MDTs. A set of excellence requirements in terms of staff, resources and organization of the LC-MDT have been proposed. At last, a list of quality indicators has been agreed to achieve and measure the performance of current LC-MDTs.