Degrees of Multidisciplinarity Underpinning Care Planning for Patients with Cancer in Weekly Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Conversation Analysis
Open Access
- 1 February 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
- Vol. ume 14, 411-424
- https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s270394
Abstract
Purpose: Despite an increase in research on multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, the implementation of MDT-driven decision-making, ie, its fidelity, remains unstudied. We report fidelity using an observational protocol measuring degree to which MDTs in their weekly meetings in the UK adhere to 1) the stages of group decision-making as per the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and 2) cancer guidelines on the composition and characteristics of their weekly meetings produced by the UK’s Department of Health, UK’s National Cancer Action Team, Cancer Research UK, World Health Organization, and The Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. Patients and Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional observational study of MDT meetings in the UK. Breast, colorectal, and gynecological cancer MDTs across three hospitals in the UK were video recorded over 12 weekly meetings, respectively, encompassing 822 case-reviews. A cross-section of 24 case-reviews was analysed with the main outcomes being adherence to the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and the cancer guidelines. Results: Eight percent of case-reviews in the MDT meetings involved all five core disciplines including surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, histopathologists, and specialist cancer nurses, and 38% included four. The majority of case-reviews (54%) were between two (25%) or three (29%) disciplines only. Surgeons (83%) and oncologists (8%) most consistently engaged in all stages of decision-making. While all patients put forward for MDT meeting were actually reviewed, 4% of them either bypassed the orientation (case presentation), and 8% did not articulate the final decision to the entire team. Conclusion: We found that, despite being a set policy, cancer case-reviews in MDT meetings are not entirely MDT-driven, with more than half of the case-reviews not adhering to the cancer guidelines, and just over 10% not adhering to the group decision-making framework. The findings are in line with the UK recommendation on streamlining MDT meetings and could help decide how to re-organise the meetings to be most efficient. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety of care.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cancer incidence in the United Kingdom: projections to the year 2030British Journal of Cancer, 2011
- Quality of Care Management Decisions by Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams: A Systematic ReviewAnnals of Surgical Oncology, 2011
- The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trialsJournal of Public Health Dentistry, 2011
- Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research AgendaAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 2010
- Explicit Reasoning, Confirmation Bias, and Illusory Transactive MemorySmall Group Research, 2009
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team?Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2007
- Regional Differences in Breast Cancer Survival Despite Common GuidelinesCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2005
- A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2005
- To Err is Human, to Correct for it DivineSmall Group Research, 2001