Effect of Multidisciplinary Case Conferences on Physician Decision Making: Breast Diagnostic Rounds

Leveraging the Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Recommendations on the Staging and Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Compliance with evidence-based treatment guidelines for gastric cancer across the United States is poor. This pilot study aimed to create and evaluate a change package for disseminating information on the staging and treatment of gastric cancer during multidisciplinary tumor boards and for identifying barriers to implementation.

METHODS

The change package included a 10-min video, a brief knowledge assessment, and a discussion guide. Commission on Cancer-accredited sites that perform gastrectomy were invited to participate. Participants completed the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale (range, 12-60) and scales to measure the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (score range, 4-20). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to further define inner and outer setting barriers.

RESULTS

Seven centers participated in the study. A total of 74 participants completed the pre-video knowledge assessment, and 55 participants completed the post-video assessment. The recommendations found to be most controversial were separate staging laparoscopy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. Sum scores were calculated for acceptability (mean, 17.43 ± 2.51) appropriateness (mean, 16.86 ± 3.24), and feasibility (mean, 16.14 ± 3.07) of the change package. The ORIC scores (mean, 46.57 ± 8.22) correlated with responses to the open-ended questions. The key barriers identified were patient volume, skills in the procedures, and attitudes and beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The change package was moderately to highly feasible, appropriate, and acceptable. The activity identified specific recommendations for gastric cancer care that are considered controversial and local barriers to implementation. Future efforts could focus on building skills and knowledge as well as the more difficult issue of attitudes and beliefs.

Multidisciplinary approach to cancer care in Rwanda: the role of tumour board meetings

Introduction

Cancer treatment is complex and necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. Tumour Board Meetings (TBMs) provide a multidisciplinary platform for health care providers to communicate about treatment plans for patients. TBMs improve patient care, treatment outcomes and, ultimately, patient satisfaction by facilitating information exchange and regular communication among all parties involved in a patient's treatment. This study describes the current status of case conference meetings in Rwanda including their structure, process and outcomes.

Methods

The study included four hospitals providing cancer care in Rwanda. Data gathered included patients' diagnosis, number of attendance and pre-TBM treatment plan, as well as changes made during TBMs, including diagnostic and management plan changes.

Results

From 128 meetings that took place at the time of the study, Rwanda Military Hospital hosted 45 (35%) meetings, King Faisal Hospital had 32 (25%), Butare University Teaching Hospital (CHUB) had 32 (25%) and Kigali University Teaching Hospital (CHUK) had 19 (15%). In all hospitals, General Surgery 69 (29%) was the leading speciality in presenting cases. The top three most presented disease site were head and neck 58 (24%), gastrointestinal 28 (16%) and cervix 28 (12%). Most (85% (202/239)) presented cases sought inputs from TBMs on management plan. On average, two oncologists, two general surgeons, one pathologist and one radiologist attended each meeting.

Conclusion

TBMs in Rwanda are increasingly getting recognised by clinicians. To influence the quality of cancer care provided to Rwandans, it is crucial to build on this enthusiasm and enhance TBMs conduct and efficiency.

The Impact of Tumor Boards on Breast Cancer Care: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, with a complex clinical path that involves several professionals and that requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, the effectiveness of breast cancer multidisciplinary care and the processes that contribute to its effectiveness have not yet been firmly determined. This study aims to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on breast cancer care outcomes. A systematic literature review was carried out through Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed databases. The search was restricted to articles assessing the impact of MTB implementation on breast cancer care. Fourteen studies were included in the review. The most analyzed outcomes were diagnosis, therapy and survival. Four out of four studies showed that, with implementation of an MTB, there was a change in diagnosis, and all reported changes in the treatment plan after MTB implementation. A pooled analysis of three studies reporting results on the outcome "mortality" showed a statistically significant 14% reduction in mortality relative risk for patients enrolled versus not enrolled in an MTB. This study shows that MTB implementation is a valuable approach to deliver appropriate and effective care to patients affected by breast cancer and to improve their outcomes.

A Web-Based Self-assessment Model for Evaluating Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Spain: Development and Validation Pilot Study

Background

Tumor boards constitute the main consensus and clinical decision–making body of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care. With the increasing clinical complexity of treatment options (eg, targeted therapies, multimodal treatments) and the progressive incorporation of new areas of intervention (eg, survivorship care), tumor boards are now required to play a central role in all cancer processes. However, although frameworks are in place to evaluate MDT quality, only few web-based tools are available for this purpose; indeed, no web-based MDT evaluation tools have been developed for or adapted to the Spanish National Health System.

Objective

The first aim of this study was to develop a web-based self-assessment model (Autoevaluación de Equipos Multidisciplinares de Atención al Cáncer [AEMAC]) for evaluating multidisciplinary cancer teams in Spain and the second aim was to validate this tool by testing its metric properties, acceptability, and usability.

Methods

We designed and validated the AEMAC program in 3 stages. In the first stage (research), we reviewed the available scientific evidence and performed a qualitative case study of good practice in multidisciplinary care within the Spanish National Health System (n=4 centers and 28 health care professionals). The results were used to define the thematic areas and quality criteria for the self-evaluation model, which were then discussed and validated by a group of experts. The second stage (development) involved the technological development of a web app that would be accessible from any mobile device. In the third stage (piloting and validation), we conducted 4 pilot tests (n=15 tumor boards, 243 professionals) and used the results to analyze the acceptability and usefulness of the tool.

Results

We designed a self-assessment model based on 5 thematic areas encompassing a total of 25 quality components, which users rated on a 3-option development scale. The evaluation process, which was managed entirely from the web app, consisted of individual self-assessment, group prioritization, and creation of an improvement plan. Cronbach alpha (.86), McDonald’s omega (0.88), and various fit indices (comparative fit index between 0.95 and 1 and goodness-of-fit index between 0.97 and 0.99 for all 5 aspects) confirmed internal consistency. The mean rating for overall satisfaction with the tool and for consistency between the content of the tool and the reality of tumor boards was 7.6 out of 10.

Conclusions

The results obtained during the period of research and piloting of the AEMAC program showed that it has an appropriate structure and metric properties and could therefore be implemented in a real context and generalized to other hospitals. As a virtual tool, it helps to measure the key aspects of MDT quality, such as effectiveness of collaboration and communication, leadership, and the organizational environment.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary infections conference improves the treatment of spondylodiscitis

Establishing a multidisciplinary approach regarding the treatment of spondylodiscitis and analyzing its effect compared to a single discipline approach. 361 patients diagnosed with spondylodiscitis were included in this retrospective pre-post intervention study. The treatment strategy was either established by a single discipline approach (n = 149, year 2003–2011) or by a weekly multidisciplinary infections conference (n = 212, year 2013–2018) consisting of at least an orthopedic surgeon, medical microbiologist, infectious disease specialist and pathologist. Recorded data included the surgical and antibiotic strategy, complications leading to operative revision, recovered microorganisms, as well as the total length of hospital and intensive care unit stay. Compared to a single discipline approach, performing the multidisciplinary infections conference led to significant changes in anti-infective and surgical treatment strategies. Patients discussed in the conference showed significantly reduced days of total antibiotic treatment (66 ± 31 vs 104 ± 31, p < 0.001). Moreover, one stage procedures and open transpedicular screw placement were more frequently performed following multidisciplinary discussions, while there were less involved spinal segments in terms of internal fixation as well as an increased use of intervertebral cages instead of autologous bone graft (p < 0.001). Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were the most frequently recovered organisms in both patient groups. No significant difference was found comparing inpatient complications between the two groups or the total in-hospital stay. Implementation of a weekly infections conference is an effective approach to introduce multidisciplinarity into spondylodiscitis management. These conferences significantly altered the treatment plan compared to a single discipline approach. Therefore, we highly recommend the implementation to optimize treatment modalities for patients.

Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Tumor Board Connecting Eight General Hospitals in Japan via a High-Security Communication Line

PURPOSE

The complexity of lung cancer treatment is rapidly increasing, necessitating the use of multidisciplinary approaches for improving outcomes. Although it is common for institutions to have their own tumor boards, tumor boards connecting several general hospitals, and therefore allowing for more diverse opinions, are not prevalent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A tumor board connecting eight hospitals was formed to discuss patients for whom formulating a treatment strategy was difficult. Physicians and hospital staff accessed a high-security communication line via LiveOn ( Japan Media Systems Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), which is completely isolated from the Internet and password protected, that enables each hospital to share the electronic medical records and images of relevant patients at other hospitals on desktop computers in real time. The lung cancer tumor board began in April 2017 and has since been held every Tuesday evening for 1 hour. Preparatory records containing the age, sex, histology, TNM classification, background, and discussion points for each patient are created before each tumor board meeting. After the tumor board discussion, all conclusions and related articles used in the board are added to the minutes, which are finalized as Microsoft Word files, consolidated, and archived. These files can be retrieved later using key words.

RESULTS

From April 2017 to June 2018, 202 patients were discussed. Although TNM classification was not changed for any patient, diverse opinions led to a change in the proposed strategy for 49 of 202 patients.

CONCLUSION

The multidisciplinary tumor board was useful in obtaining various opinions from the perspectives of different experts. This should be evaluated in a prospective study.

The requirements of a specialist breast centre

This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

European Guidelines on the Organisation of Breast Centres and Voluntary Certification Processes

BACKGROUND

EUSOMA undertook the commitment of defining the requirements for a specialist breast centre, which has become the reference document for the implementation of breast centres.

SUMMARY

The EUSOMA requirements for a specialist breast centre give clear indications regarding the requisite caseload, dedicated team composition (core and non-core team), organisation, availability of services and equipment throughout the patient pathway, quality control, and application of a multidisciplinary approach. The minimum number of cases is 150 newly diagnosed breast cancer cases per year. Based on the EUSOMA requirements, a voluntary and accredited certification scheme has been developed. In Europe, other voluntary certification schemes are available, such as those developed by the German Cancer Society and German Society for Breast Disease, the National Cancer Peer Review Programme in the UK, and the "label de qualité" established by the Swiss Anticancer League and the Swiss Senology Society. The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) has overseen the development of a European Quality Assurance Scheme.

KEY MESSAGES

Nearly 20 years after the initial publication of the EUSOMA requirements, ensuring that all breast cancer patients in Europe are treated only in certified breast centres should be considered a high priority and eventually achieved through collaborative efforts.

Impact of GI Tumor Board on Patient Management and Adherence to Guidelines

Purpose

As the burden of cancer on the population and the health care system continues to increase with more complicated treatment options, the need for multidisciplinary teams to be as efficient as possible becomes more vital. Our study aimed to evaluate the consistency of GI Tumor Board (GI TB) recommendations with international guidelines, the adherence of physicians involved in patient care to TB recommendations, and the impact on the management of patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted from January to June 2016 at our institution, which is a major tertiary hospital that provides comprehensive cancer care. All cases presented at the GI TB during this period were included. Data regarding adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, adherence to TB recommendations, and changes made to the management of patients were collected weekly from the GI TB in a data collection form.

Results

Of the 104 patients included, 57 (55%) were males and the median age was 58 (16 to 85) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common diagnosis, in 65 patients (63%). Nearly one-half of cases (45%) were stage IV cancers. Starting new treatment was recommended for 72 patients (69%). Further investigations were requested for 15 patients (14%). For imaging, 24 recommendations (23%) were made. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was observed in 97% of total recommendations. New findings were found in pathology (11%), radiology (13%), and staging (4%). Management plans were changed in 37 cases (36%). Over a 3-month period after presentation to the GI TB, most of the recommendations (87%) were performed.

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary tumor board enhances the adherence to guidelines and has an impact on patient management in approximately one-third of patients. Among physicians, adherence to recommendations of the TB was high.

Multidisciplinary care of breast cancer patients: a scoping review of multidisciplinary styles, processes, and outcomes

Background

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care that brings together all relevant disciplines to discuss optimal disease management. However, the literature is characterized by heterogeneous definitions and few reviews about the processes and outcomes of multidisciplinary care. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and classify the definitions and characteristics of multidisciplinary care, as well as outcomes and interventions for patients with breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic search for quantitative and qualitative studies about multidisciplinary care for patients with breast cancer was conducted for January 2001 to December 2017 in the following electronic databases: medline, embase, PsycInfo, and cinahl. Two reviewers independently applied our eligibility criteria at level 1 (title/abstract) and level 2 (full-text) screening. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively.

Results

The search yielded 9537 unique results, of which 191 were included in the final analysis. Two main types of multidisciplinary care were identified: conferences and clinics. Most studies focused on outcomes of multidisciplinary care that could be variously grouped at the patient, provider, and system levels. Research into processes tended to focus on processes that facilitate implementation: team-working, meeting logistics, infrastructure, quality audit, and barriers and facilitators.

Summary

Approaches to multidisciplinary care using conferences and clinics are well described. However, studies vary by design, clinical context, patient population, and study outcome. The heterogeneity of the literature, including the patient populations studied, warrants further specification of multidisciplinary care practice and systematic reviews of the processes or contexts that make the implementation and operation of multidisciplinary care effective.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary infections conference affects the treatment plan in prosthetic joint infections of the hip: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Establishing a systematic multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the hip and analyzing its effect on clinical decision-making.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-six patients diagnosed with PJI of the hip were included in the retrospective study. The treatment plan was either established by a single-discipline approach (n = 20) or by a weekly multidisciplinary infections conference (n = 26) consisting of at least an orthopedic surgeon, microbiologist and pathologist. Recorded data included the length of hospital stay, number and type of surgeries, medical complications, recovered organisms as well as the number of applied antibiotics.

RESULTS

Patients discussed in the multidisciplinary infections conference showed a significantly shorter in-hospital stay (29 vs 62 days; p < 0.05), a significant reduction in surgeries (1.8 vs 5.1; p < 0.05) and a smaller number of antibiotics required (2.8 vs 4.2; p < 0.05). No significant difference could be found comparing inpatient complications between the two groups. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequently recovered organisms in both patient groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the successful implementation of a weekly infections conference as an instrument to introduce a multidisciplinary approach to PJI of the hip. Implementation of these conferences significantly improves the treatment plan compared to a single-discipline approach, which we therefore highly recommend for other institutions. Multidiscipline may even affect clinical outcome which needs to be further investigated.

Fostering Local Health Department and Health System Collaboration Through Case Conferences for At-Risk and Vulnerable Populations

In case conferences, health care providers work together to identify and address patients' complex social and medical needs. Public health nurses from the local health department joined case conference teams at federally qualified health center primary care sites to foster cross-sector collaboration, integration, and mutual learning. Public health nurse participation resulted in frequent referrals to local health department services, greater awareness of public health capabilities, and potential policy interventions to address social determinants of health.

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

Background

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have become standard practice in oncology and gained the status of the key decision-making forum for cancer patient management. The current literature provides evidence that MDTMs are achieving their intended objectives but there are also indications to question the positive impact of MDTMs in oncology settings. For cancer management to be patient-centered, it is crucial that medical information as well as psychosocial aspects—such as the patients’ living situation, possible family problems, patients' mental state, and patients’ perceptions and values or preferences towards treatment or care—are considered and discussed during MDTMs. Previous studies demonstrate that failure to account for patients’ psychosocial information has a negative impact on the implementation of the treatment recommendations formulated during MDTMs. Few empirical studies have demonstrated the predominant role of physicians during MDTMs, leading to the phenomenon that medical information is shared almost exclusively at the expense of psychosocial information. However, more in-depth insight on the underlying reasons why MDTMs fail to take into account psychosocial information of cancer patients is needed.

Objective

This paper presents a research protocol for a cross-sectional observational study that will focus on exploring the barriers to considering psychosocial information during MDTMs at medical oncology departments.

Methods

This protocol encompasses a cross-sectional comparative case study of MDTMs at medical oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium. MDTMs from various oncology subspecialties at inpatient medical oncology departments in multiple hospitals (academic as well as general hospitals) are compared. The observations focus on the “multidisciplinary oncology consultation” (MOC), a formally regulated and financed type of MDTM in Belgian oncology since 2003. Data are collected through nonparticipant observations of MOC–meetings. Observational data are supplemented with semi-structured individual interviews with members of the MOC–meetings.

Results

The protocol is part of a larger research project on communication and multidisciplinary collaboration in oncology departments. Results of this study will particularly focus on the input of psychosocial information during MDTMs.

Conclusions

The concept of an MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who mostly work independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Interventions aiming to enhance the input of psychosocial information are crucial to ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential. The findings from this study can be used to design nonclinical and organizational interventions that enhance multidisciplinary decision-making in oncology.