The Next Step Toward Patient-Centeredness in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings: An Interview Study with Professionals

Medical decision making for older patients during multidisciplinary oncology team meetings.

BackgroundThe contribution of patients’ non-medical characteristics to individual physicians’ decision-making has attracted considerable attention, but little information is available on this topic in the context of collective decision-making. Medical decision-making at cancer centres is currently carried out using a collective approach, at MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings. The aim of this study was to determine how patients’ non-medical characteristics are presented at MDT meetings and how this information may affect the team’s final medical decisions.DesignObservations were conducted at a French Cancer Centre during MDT meetings at which non-standard cases involving some uncertainty were discussed from March to May 2014. Physicians’ verbal statements and predefined contextual parameters were collected with a non-participant observational approach. Non numerical data collected in the form of open notes were then coded for quantitative analysis. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.ResultsIn the final sample of patients’ records included and discussed (N = 290), non-medical characteristics were mentioned in 32.8% (n = 95) of the cases. These characteristics corresponded to demographics in 22.8% (n = 66) of the cases, psychological data in 11.7% (n = 34), and relational data in 6.2% (n = 18). The patient’s age and his/her “likeability” were the most frequently mentioned characteristics. In 17.9% of the cases discussed, the final decision was deferred: this outcome was positively associated with the patients’ non-medical characteristics and with uncertainty about the outcome of the therapeutic options available.LimitationsThe design of the study made it difficult to draw definite cause-and-effect conclusions.ConclusionThe Social Representations approach suggests that patients’ non-medical characteristics constitute a kind of tacit professional knowledge that may be frequently mobilised in physicians’ everyday professional practice. The links observed between patients’ attributes and the medical decisions made at these meetings show that these attributes should be taken into account in order to understand how medical decisions are reached in difficult situations of this kind.

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.

BackgroundMultidisciplinary cancer team meetings are intended to optimize the diagnosis of a patient with a malignancy. The aim of this study was to assess the number of correct diagnoses formulated by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and whether MDT decisions were implemented.MethodsIn a prospective study, data of consecutive patients discussed at gastrointestinal oncology MDT meetings were studied, and MDT diagnoses were validated with pathology or follow-up. Factors of influence on the correct diagnosis were identified by use of a Poisson regression model. Electronic patient records were used to assess whether MDT decisions were implemented, and reasons to deviate from these decisions were hand-searched within these records.ResultsIn 74 MDT meetings, 551 patients were discussed a total of 691 times. The MDTs formulated a correct diagnosis for 515/551 patients (93.4 %), and for 120/551 (21.8 %) patients the MDT changed the referral diagnosis. Of the MDT diagnoses, 451/515 (87.6 %) were validated with pathology. Patients presented to the MDT by their treating physician were 20 % more likely to receive a correct diagnosis [relative risk (RR) 1.2, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.5], while the number of patients discussed or the duration of the meeting had no influence on this (RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.99–1.0; RR 1.0, 95 % CI 0.9–1.1; resp.). MDT decisions were implemented in 94.4 % of cases. Deviations of MDT decisions occurred when a patient’s wishes or physical condition were not taken into account.ConclusionsMDTs rectify 20 % of the referral diagnoses. The presence of the treating physician is the most important factor to ensure a correct diagnosis and adherence to the treatment plan.

Background:Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are considered a component of gold-standard care for patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and concomitant psoriasis (PsO) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There are few published reports...

The quality of decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings is variable, which can result in suboptimal clinical decision making. We developed MDT-QuIC, an evidence-based tool to support clinical decision making by MDTs, which was evaluated by key users. Following a literature review, factors important for high-quality clinical decision making were listed and then converted into a preliminary checklist by clinical and safety experts. Attitudes of MDT members toward the tool were evaluated via an online survey, before adjustments were made giving rise to a final version: MDT-QuIC. The checklist was evaluated by 175 MDT members (surgeons = 38, oncologists = 40, specialist nurses = 62, and MDT coordinators = 35). Attitudes toward the checklist were generally positive (P < 0.001, 1-sample t test), although nurses were more positive than other groups regarding whether the checklist would improve their contribution in MDT meetings (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Participants thought that the checklist could be used to prepare cases for MDT meetings, to structure and guide case discussions, or as a record of MDT discussion. Regarding who could use the checklist, 70% thought it should be used by the MDT chair, 54% by the MDT coordinator, and 38% thought all MDT members should use it. We have developed and validated an evidence-based tool to support the quality of MDT decision making. MDT members were positive about the checklist and felt it may help to structure discussion, improve inclusivity, and patient centeredness. Further research is needed to assess its effect on patient care and outcomes.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are common to many fields of medicine and widely established internationally. They are intended to ensure higher-quality decision-making and improved patient outcomes. For patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), decisions on whether to place marginally suitable candidates on the kidney transplantation waiting list can be challenging and as such they are supported by MDT meetings. Uncertainty in terms of the best course of action can be linked with a dearth of knowledge or evidence on specific medical conditions and likely implications for successful transplantation, but also on unforeseen outcomes influenced by patient behaviours. In this project, we observed how MDT meetings work in practice in kidney transplant listing, unpacking issues of risk and uncertainty in transplant decision-making processes. Our findings indicate that a central value of MDT meetings is managing medical uncertainty and psychosocial risks, and distributing responsibility for complex transplant listing decisions to ensure equity of access to transplantation as well as an efficient use of scarce kidneys. This sheds light on strategies enacted to mitigate these risks and uncertainties, and the role played by different types of knowledge (experiential versus scientifically evidence-based) in the overall decision-making process.

Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' of lung cancer care. MDTs improve adherence to clinical guidelines for lung cancer patients. In this study, we describe and compare lung cancer MDTs in Denmark and Norway by combining national surveys and the MDT-Metric for the Observation of Decision-making (MDT-MODe) instrument. Identical surveys were sent out to all lung cancer MDT centers in Denmark and Norway by the Danish Lung Cancer Group and the Norwegian Lung Cancer Group. Six MDT centers, three in Denmark and three in Norway, were observed using the MDT-MODe instrument. We found similar organization of MDT meetings in both countries, with the main difference being more local MDT meetings in Norway. All lung cancer MDTs were chaired by respiratory physicians and attended by a radiologist. Other members included oncologists, pathologists, thoracic surgeons, specialist nurses, nuclear medicine specialists and junior doctors. Overall, members reported that they had sufficient time for preparation and attending MDT meetings. With the MDT-MODe instrument it was found that the MDT chairs, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists all contributed positively to case discussion. Comorbidities were included in the discussion of most patients while the patient's view and psychosocial issues were less often discussed. A treatment decision was reached in 79.7% of cases discussed. In conclusion, we found similar settings and overall good quality concerning lung cancer MDT meetings in Denmark and Norway.

Urogynaecology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to discuss management plans prior to invasive treatments for urinary incontinence have been recommended by guidelines in the UK since 2013. Evidence for MDT discussion in urogynaecology is lacking, with only two published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cases discussed at a secondary care urogynaecology MDT meeting, to establish types of clinical problems discussed, assess the outcomes of the MDT meeting and compare this with existing evidence for MDT meetings in urogynaecology. A retrospective review of meeting minutes and all case notes for patients discussed at 12 MDT meetings over 13months was carried out. Data collected included attendance from different staff groups, reasons for referral, outcome of discussions, and changes to management plans. A total of 123 cases were discussed over 12 meetings, 7 members of staff attended each meeting on average. 63% of cases were referred for discussion of a primary problem. The majority of patients were referred for discussion of management of urinary incontinence prior to invasive procedures (57%). The agreed MDT plan corresponded with proposed management in 67% of cases, with changes to management plan in 31% of cases. Refinements to management plans in this study highlight the importance of MDT input in urogynaecology care and mirror the findings of two previous studies. Evidence for improved outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of MDTs is lacking and is an area for future research. Expanded national guidance for urogynaecology MDTs is likely to require local and regional restructuring of these in the UK.

There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in lung cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the patterns of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer who were presented at a lung cancer MDT meeting with the patterns of care for patients who were not presented. All patients who had lung cancer newly diagnosed in South West Sydney (SWS) between December 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008, were identified from the local Clinical Cancer Registry. Patient and tumor characteristics and treatment receipt were compared between patients who were and were not presented at MDT meetings. A logistic regression model was constructed to determine predictors for receiving treatment and survival. In total, there were 988 patients, including 504 patients who were presented at MDT meetings and 484 who were not presented at MDT meetings. The median patient age was 69 years and 73 years in the MDT group and the non-MDT group, respectively (P < .01). There was no pathologic diagnosis for 13% of non-MDT patients compared with 4% of MDT patients (P < .01). Treatment receipt for MDT patients versus non-MDT patients was 12% versus 13%, respectively, for surgery (P value nonsignificant); 66% versus 33%, respectively, for radiotherapy (P < .001); 46% versus 29%, respectively, for chemotherapy (P < .001); and 66% versus 53%, respectively, for palliative care (P < .001). In patients with good performance status, the MDT group had significantly better receipt of radiotherapy among patients with stage I through IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and had significantly better receipt of chemotherapy among patients with stage IV NSCLC. MDT discussion was an independent predictor of receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and referral to palliative care but did not influence survival. MDT discussion was associated with better treatment receipt, which potentially may improve quality of life for patients with lung cancer. However, it did not improve survival.

Introduction: ChILD represent a heterogeneous group of rare and mostly severe disorders. In France, around 400 patients with chILD are listed. In adults, multidisciplinary teams (MDT) meetings are recognized as a crucial tool in such rare lung diseases. We aim at reporting the French experience of MDT meetings for chILD. Methods: On-line, video-conference MDT meetings have been held every month since 2018. For each patient, a standardized form is filled up by the clinician and sent to the Reference center for rare lung diseases (www.respiFIL.fr, www.respirare.fr). The MDT meetings include experts in the field with the aim of discussing diagnosis or treatment issues related to ChILD. After the MDT meeting, a report is established and sent to the requesting team. Results: In the last 20 months, 20 MDT were held and 107 patients were discussed. Participants were pediatric pulmonologists, geneticists, genetic counselor, pathologist, pediatric radiologists, and adult pulmonologists. The median age of the patients was 2 years-old. They were mainly followed in France but 14 (13%) patients were presented by international colleagues. The demands included a diagnosis issue (2%), management (19%), or both (75%). The MDT meetings allowed to precise or modify the ILD etiology in 1/3 of the patients; and to excluded ILD in 11 (10%). ILD remained of undefined cause for 19 (24%) vs 25 (32%). Conclusion: MDT meetings for chILD are easily feasible. They provide an important epidemiologic input by increasing the chILD case collection (+25%). They are an opportunity to collectively improve our knowledge on diagnosis and management of these rare diseases and to discuss genetic council issues.

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are vital for improving patient outcomes and treatment plans, yet their effectiveness remains uncertain. Existing research demonstrates that collaborative treatment plans in cancer care lead to better results than those made by individual practitioners. The impact of MDT meetings on patients' management outcomes is significant. Aim: To evaluate the distribution, characteristics, and diagnoses of cancer patients. Additionally, it seeks to assess the influence of MDT meetings on clinical decision-making and the subsequent impact on patient outcomes. Subjects and methods: A descriptive investigation analyzed a cohort of 150 cancer patients receiving care at Benghazi Medical Center from January to June 2022. Diagnoses were established through comprehensive clinical evaluations, laboratory assessments, radiographic imaging, and histopathological examinations. Medical interventions were determined collaboratively by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals, leveraging their specialized expertise for optimal patient management. Results: The study found that individuals aged 41–60 comprised the largest proportion of cancer patients (49.3%). Females accounted for the majority (62%) of cases, and most participants were from Benghazi (69.3%). Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) cancers were the most prevalent (58.7%), followed by breast tumors in women (14.7%) and pancreatic tumors (6%). Treatment decisions, tailored to individual patient needs, were made collaboratively by the multidisciplinary team. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination was chosen for 47.3% of cases, while surgical resection was appropriate for 30.7% of cases. The study's findings support the hypothesis that MDT meetings contribute to effective and up-to-date management guidelines. Neglecting discussions about cancer patients poses significant risks that can no longer be ignored. MDT meetings mitigate these risks and ensure comprehensive medical decisions. Conclusion: The study observed that chemotherapy and surgical resection were frequently selected as treatment options. It emphasized the importance of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in guiding clinical decision-making. However, further feedback regarding the optimal format of MDT meetings is required. Establishing standardized MDT protocols is imperative for enhancing patient management outcomes.

PurposeDespite 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 MethodsThis 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.ResultsEight 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.ConclusionWe 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.

Educational Value of Surgical Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Learning Non-Technical Skills – A Pilot Survey of Trainees From Two UK Deaneries

BackgroundMDT (multidisciplinary team) meetings are considered an essential component of care for patients with cancer. However there is remarkably little direct evidence that such meetings improve outcomes. We assessed whether or not MDT (multidisciplinary team) processes influenced survival in a cohort of patients with colorectal cancer.MethodsObservational study of a population-based cohort of 586 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed in Tayside (Scotland) during 2006 and 2007.ResultsRecommendations from MDT meetings were implemented in 411/586 (70.1 %) of patients, the MDT+ group. The remaining175/586 (29.9 %) were either never discussed at an MDT, or recommendations were not implemented, MDT- group. The 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) rates were 63.1 % (MDT+) and 48.2 % (MDT-), p < 0.0001. In analysis confined to patients who survived >6 weeks after diagnosis, the rates were 63.2 % (MDT+) and 57.7 % (MDT-), p = 0.064. The adjusted hazard rate (HR) for death from colorectal cancer was 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00, p = 0.047) in the MDT+ group compared to the MDT- group, in patients surviving >6 weeks the adjusted HR was 1.00 (0.70 to 1.42, p = 0.987). Any benefit from the MDT process was largely confined to patients with advanced disease: adjusted HR (early) 1.32 (0.69 to 2.49, p = 0.401); adjusted HR(advanced) 0.65 (0.45 to 0.96, p = 0.031).ConclusionsAdequate MDT processes are associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal cancer. However, some of this effect may be more apparent than real – simply reflecting selection bias. The MDT process predominantly benefits the 40 % of patients who present with advanced disease and conveys little demonstrable advantage to patients with early tumours. These results call into question the current belief that all new patients with colorectal cancer should be discussed at an MDT meeting.