Input of Psychosocial Information During Multidisciplinary Team Meetings at Medical Oncology Departments: Protocol for an Observational Study

User involvement in interprofessional team meetings within services for substance use disorders

Background

People with substance use disorders (SUD) and concurrent mental health disorders often need prolonged, coordinated health and welfare services. Interprofessional team meetings are designed to tailor services to users' needs and should be based on interprofessional collaboration involving the user.

Aims

To investigate service users' experiences with interprofessional team meetings and to identify potential barriers to successful user involvement.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with five male service users aged 27-36 years with concurrent substance use and psychiatric disorders, and observations of team meetings involving both users and relevant professionals. Users were interviewed shortly after commencing treatment and after the team meeting. A phenomenographical approach framed the data analysis.

Results

Users described the interprofessional team meetings as less than useful, and perceived that lack of a targeted process and of information hindered their collaboration with professionals. Observations revealed that users were given a subordinate role in the meetings, which largely undermined their involvement. Three categories reflecting lack of information as a core obstacle to user involvement emerged from the data material: (i) unclear role responsibilities and unclear professional role functions, (ii) unclear practices regarding rules and routines, and (iii) absence of user knowledge.

Conclusions

User involvement in team meetings may be improved by facilitating adequate information, clarifying role expectations, emphasising user knowledge, increasing professionals' awareness of the importance of collaboration, and by teaching skills that enhance user involvement.

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementation of a Computerized Clinical Decision Support System in Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings-A Qualitative Assessment

Simple Summary

Oncological computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are currently being developed to facilitate workflows of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). To successfully implement these systems in MDTMs, the aim of this qualitative assessment was to identify barriers and facilitators for implementation and to provide actionable findings for an implementation strategy. The main facilitators for implementation of the CCDSS were considered to be easy access to well-structured data, and reducing time spent by clinicians on MDTM preparation and duration of the MDTMs. Main barriers for adoption were seen in incomplete or non-trustworthy output generated by the system and insufficient adaptability of the system to local and contextual needs. Actionable findings for an implementation strategy were a usability test and validation study involving key users in the organization’s real-life setting. Given the growing interest in CCDSSs in oncology care, insight in barriers and facilitators for successful implementation seems highly relevant.

Abstract

Background: Oncological computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) to facilitate workflows of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are currently being developed. To successfully implement these CCDSSs in MDTMs, this study aims to: (a) identify barriers and facilitators for implementation for the use case of lung cancer; and (b) provide actionable findings for an implementation strategy. Methods: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science was used to create an interview protocol and to analyze the results. Semi-structured interviews were conducted among various health care professionals involved in MDTMs. The transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis following a deductive approach. Results: Twenty-six professionals participated in the interviews. The main facilitators for implementation of the CCDSS were considered to be easy access to well-structured patient data, and the resulting reduction of MDTM preparation time and of duration of MDTMs. Main barriers for adoption were seen in incomplete or non-trustworthy output generated by the system and insufficient adaptability of the system to local and contextual needs. Conclusion: Using a CCDSS in lung cancer MDTMs was expected to increase efficiency of workflows. Successful implementation was seen as dependent on the reliability and adaptability of the CCDSS and involvement of key users in the implementation process.

Physicians’ attitudes and perspectives regarding the uptake of psychosocial aspects and/or patient preferences during multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology

Introduction

Coordinating cancer care is challenging because of its complexity. To partly encounter this complexity, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) were implemented to evaluate diagnosis, discuss treatment options and collectively decide upon the most optimal patient care and treatment plan. In cancer trajectories, medical professionals have a coordinating role and final decision responsibility. As a consequence patient-centred non-biomedical information are easily overlooked during discussions in MDTMs. This study aims to uncover physicians’ perceived barriers regarding the uptake of psychosocial aspects and/or patient preferences in the cancer treatment decision-making process during Multidisciplinary Oncology Consultations (MOCs), a specific type of MDTM in Belgium.

Methods

Between March 2019 and May 2019 semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty medical professionals specialized in oncology. Grounded theory principles were used to detect and classify perceived barriers and patterns emerging regarding the uptake of psychosocial information in the cancer treatment decision-making process.

Results

Although physicians showed an open attitude towards taking into account psychosocial aspects and patient preferences in treatment decisions, the majority of respondents is not convinced the MOC is the best place to discuss these aspects. Physicians reported organisational, work process, and health system related barriers.

Discussion

The MOC emerges as a medicalized form of team discussion that, in its current form, does not reach its objective of truly integrated multidisciplinarity as cancer care is demanding. The working practices of the MOC can be optimized to evolve towards a truly interdisciplinary approach.

Patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences: Providers' perceptions of patients' need satisfaction and emotional experiences

OBJECTIVE

In some breast and gynecological cancer centers in Germany, patients participate in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) during the discussion of their own case. The aim of this study was to explore providers' perceptions concerning patients' emotional experiences during participation in an MTC by comparing the perspectives of providers with and without experience with patient participation.

METHODS

In this study, semi-structured interviews with n = 30 providers in n = 6 breast and gynecological cancer centers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were conducted. One half of the providers had no experience and the other half had experience with patient participation in MTCs. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, and content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The results of this study show a mixed picture of met, unmet and disappointed needs of patients and their emotional reactions, which mainly overlap between both provider groups. Our results show that both provider groups report positive and negative experiences or expectations.

CONCLUSION

The mixed results regarding expected and perceived patient experiences from the providers' perspective suggest that patient participation in MTCs may not be exclusively of benefit. Further research on advantages and disadvantages for patients and on feasibility from the providers' perspective is necessary and will be conducted within the PINTU project.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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