Impact Of Multidisciplinary Care Research Articles

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working.

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

Understanding multidisciplinary care for people with rheumatic disease in British Columbia, Canada, through patients, nurses and physicians voices: a qualitative policy evaluation

BackgroundIn 2011, the province of British Columbia (BC) moved to allow patients with complex rheumatic disease to be seen by nurses along with their rheumatologist by introducing a ‘Multidisciplinary Care Assessments’ (MCA) billing code (G31060).ObjectiveTo describe multidisciplinary care introduced as part of MCAs across BC and investigate the perceived impact of this intervention, the addition of nurses to the care team, on patient care from the perspective of patients, nurses, and rheumatologists.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews, informed by a qualitative evaluation approach with patients, nurses, and rheumatologists from September 2019 – August 2020. Interviews investigated 1) the experiences of all stakeholders with adopting the multidisciplinary care billing code, 2) the perceived role of the nurse in the care team, and 3) the perceived impact of multidisciplinary care on patient experience and outcomes. We purposefully sampled practices for maximum variation of geographical location (rural vs. urban), size of practice (i.e., patient caseload), and number of nurses employed.ResultsWe interviewed 21 patients, 13 nurses, and 12 rheumatologists from across BC. Our analysis identified variation in the way rheumatologists adopted multidisciplinary care across BC. Our analysis showed some heterogeneity in the way the MCA was delivered in rheumatology practices; however, patient education was identified as the core role of nurses across practices. We identified six core themes describing the impact of this model of care, all representing improvements in the way practices functioned, from improved efficiency to access, patient experience, time management, clinician experience, and patient health outcomes. Contextual factors that influenced the presence of these themes were related to the time the nurses spent with patients and the professional roles they performed.ConclusionOur results suggest nurse care can complement physician care by extending contact time for patients and promoting the efficient use of health care professionals’ skills, time, and resources. These data may encourage future uptake of the billing code to help ensure the policy delivers maximum benefits to patients given the wide range of perceived benefits described by clinicians and patients.

Multidisciplinary care models for patients with lung cancer.

Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, even though there is a relative lack of consistent evidence that this care model improves outcomes. In this review, we present the available literature regarding how to set up and run an efficient multidisciplinary care model for lung cancer patients with emphasis on team members’ roles and responsibilities. Moreover, we present some limited evidence about multidisciplinary care and its impact on lung cancer outcomes and survival.This review provides simple guidance on setting up and running a multidisciplinary service for lung cancer patients. It highlights the importance of defined roles and responsibilities for team members. It also presents concise information based on the literature regarding the impact of multidisciplinary care in lung cancer outcomes (e.g. survival of patients undergoing lung cancer surgery).

Outcomes from a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference (MTOC) versus serial care (SC) in a community healthcare system.

55 Background: Lung cancer care delivery is complex, with disparate quality and outcomes. Prospective multidisciplinary case planning is a recommended but poorly validated solution. We conducted a prospective comparative effectiveness trial to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary care on care processes and long-term survival in a large community-based healthcare system. Methods: We previously reported primary objective results comparing patients in the multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) with those not cared for in the MDC i.e. usual, SC. However, a subset of the SC subjects (and all MDC subjects) were discussed at a weekly MTOC. In this secondary analysis, we compare all subjects who were prospectively discussed at MTOC (with or without MDC) with ‘true’ SC (TSC). Subjects were frequency matched by age range, race, insurance, performance status, and initial clinical stage. We compared the thoroughness of staging, use of guideline-concordant treatment, and survival. Models were stratified by frequency matched variables and adjusted for age, sex, and histology as covariates. Statistical methods included chi-square, logistic regression with adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR), and Proportional Hazards models with adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR); both with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Of 526 subjects enrolled, 246 (47%) were discussed at MTOC. MTOC patients were older (median age 68 v 66, p = 0.03), less intense smokers (p = 0.03), and more commercially insured (p = 0.02). Fewer MTOC subjects were clinical stage IV (33% v 45%, p = 0.01). The MTOC patients had significantly greater odds of bimodal staging (aOR: 2.2 [1.3, 3.8]), trimodal staging (2.6 [1.8, 3.8]), invasive stage confirmation (2.6 [1.7, 3.9]), and mediastinal stage confirmation (2.4 [1.6, 3.6]; all p < 0.01). The additional stage confirmation resulted in more patients who were up- or down-staged in MTOC (44% v 33%, p = 0.03). MTOC patients were twice as likely to receive National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment (aOR: 2.0 [1.3, 3.2]). Despite more thorough care, time from initial lesion detection to treatment was similar (mean: 2.86 vs. 2.83 months, p = 0.71). Health-related quality of life measures did not differ between the two arms (P = 0.07 to 0.99). We found no difference in overall (aHR: 1.1 [0.9, 1.4]) or disease free survival (aHR: 1.1 [0.9, 1.3]) between MTOC and TSC. Conclusions: MTOC improved the thoroughness of care and delivery of appropriate treatment, without delays in treatment initiation or survival improvement.

Heart Failure Prescribing Quality at Discharge from a Critical Care Unit in Egypt: The Impact of Multidisciplinary Care.

Discharge prescriptions for heart failure (HF) patients may not adhere to the clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to assess the impact of the clinical pharmacist as a member of a multidisciplinary team on the quality of prescribing to HF patients at discharge from a Critical Care Unit (CCU) in Egypt. This was a retrospective cohort study of HF patients discharged from the CCU between January 2013 and December 2017. Guideline Adherence Index (GAI-3) was used to assess guideline-directed prescribing at discharge. Multidisciplinary care was introduced to the CCU on 1 January 2016. The study included 284 HF patients, mean (±SD) age 66.7 ± 11.5 years, 53.2% male. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction affected 100 patients (35.2%). At discharge, loop diuretics were prescribed to 85.2% of patients; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists to 54.9%; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers to 51.4%; and β-blockers to 29.9%. Population Guideline Adherence Index (GAI-3) was 45.5%. High-GAI was prescribed to 136 patients (47.9%). Patients with High-GAI were younger; less affected by chronic kidney disease and had fewer comorbidities than those without High-GAI. Prescription of β-blocker increased (24.1% vs. 38.6%, p < 0.001) and digoxin utilization decreased (34.7% vs. 23.7%, p < 0.049) after the introduction of the multidisciplinary care. The inclusion of a clinical pharmacist in the multidisciplinary care team may have a role in optimizing the prescribing of HF guideline-directed therapies at discharge from this setting.

Survival impact of multidisciplinary thoracic oncology care in a regional healthcare system.

2004 Background: Much-advocated, the value and impact of multidisciplinary care and planning (MDC) needs greater evidence. We compared non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient characteristics, treatment patterns and survival in a large community healthcare system spanning 3 US states with some of the highest lung cancer incidence and mortality rates. Methods: We identified MDC patients in the Tumor Registry NSCLC data from 2011-2017. Because the MDC program was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MDC patients by location of care resulting in 3 cohorts: MDC, non-MDC metropolitan care and non-MDC regional care. Using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, we categorized treatment by stage as ‘preferred’, ‘appropriate’ (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-squared tests and compared survival using Cox regression with Bonferroni adjustment. We repeated survival analysis with propensity matched cohorts. Results: Of 6259 patients, 14% received MDC, 56% metro care and 30% regional care; MDC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% v 28% v 22%), stage I-IIIB (63 v 40 v 50), urban residents (81 v 78 v 20), stage-preferred treatment rates (66 v 57 v 48), stage-appropriate treatment rates (78 v 70 v 63;), and lowest non-treatment rates (6 v 21 v 28). All p&lt;0.001. Compared to MDC, the hazard for death was higher in metro (1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.6) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9); hazards were higher in regional care v metro (1.2, 1.1-1.3); all p&lt;0.001 after adjustment. Results were similar for MDC comparisons after propensity matching with and without adjusting for preferred treatment. No differences in regional and metro cohorts. Conclusions: In this large community-based healthcare system, receipt of MDC for NSCLC was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing strong evidence for recommending rigorous implementation of MDC. [Table: see text]

Impact of Multi-Disciplinary Care and Clinical Coach Coordinators on Participant Satisfaction and Retention in TBI Clinical Trials: A TEAM-TBI Study.

Targeted Evaluation Action and Monitoring of Traumatic Brain Injury (TEAM-TBI) is a monitored, multiple interventional research identifying clinical profiles and assigns individualized, evidence-based treatment program. The objective of the current study was to assess overall participant satisfaction of the multi-disciplinary care team and approach. Between 2014 and 2017, 90 participants completed the 4-day TEAM-TBI clinical intake evaluation resulting in individualized treatment recommendations followed by a six-month intervention phase follow-up. Inclusion criteria were: age 18-60, history of chronic TBI (>6 months post-injury) with refractory clinical sequelae at screening (Post-Concussion Symptom Scale [PCSS] score >30). A total of 85/90 (94%) participants completed the survey at baseline focusing on intake evaluation and approach; 90% of eligible participants also completed the follow-up time-point. Hundred percent of participants had a mean score of >4 across all questions at the initial time point." The multi-disciplinary care approach and individualized treatment plans of the TEAM-TBI study yielded high participant retention and satisfaction scores. The Clinical Coach component of the trial was one of the highest rated aspects of the program and was associated with participant motivation and high retention rates.

The impact of multidisciplinary care on early morbidity and mortality after heart transplantation.

The impact of multidisciplinary care on outcome after heart transplantation (HTx) remains unclear. This retrospective study investigates the impact of multidisciplinary care on the primary end point 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and the secondary end point mean acute cellular rejection (ACR) grade within the first postoperative year. This study includes a total 140 HTx recipients (median age: 53.5 years; males: 80%; donor/recipient gender mismatch: 38.3%; mean length of in-hospital stay: 34 days; mean donor age: 41 years). Multidisciplinary care was implemented in 2008, 66 HTx recipients had operation in 2000-07 and 74 patients had HTx thereafter (2008-14). Non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy was more prevalent in HTx recipients of 2000-07 (63.6 vs 43.2%; P = 0.024). Pre-transplant mechanical circulatory support was more frequent in 2008-14 (9.1 vs 24.3%; P = 0.030). Groups were not different for pre-transplant cardiovascular risk factors or other comorbidity, invasive haemodynamics or echocardiographic parameters. In-hospital and 1-year ACM were numerically lower in 2008-14 (16.2 vs 22.2%; 18.9% vs 25.8%; P = 0.47/0.47, respectively). In 2000-07, pre-transplant weight and diabetes mellitus predicted in-hospital ACM (odds ratio -0.14, P = 0.02; OR 5.24, P = 0.01, respectively) while post-transplant length of in-hospital stay was related with in-hospital ACM (odds ratio -0.10; P = 0.016) and 1-year ACM (odds ratio -0.07; P = 0.007). In 2000-07, the mean grade of ACR within the first postoperative year was higher (0.65 vs 0.20; P < 0.0001) and ≥moderate ACR was associated with in-hospital mortality (χ2 = 3.92; P = 0.048). Multidisciplinary care in HTx compensates post-transplant risk associated with pre-transplant disease and has beneficial impact on the incidence of ACR and ACR-associated early mortality.

Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the value of the multidisciplinary health care team.

Lung cancer is a major worldwide health burden, with high disease-related morbidity and mortality. Unlike other major cancers, there has been little improvement in lung cancer outcomes over the past few decades, and survival remains disturbingly low. Multidisciplinary care is the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment in the developed world, despite a relative lack of evidence that this model of care improves outcomes. In this article, the available literature concerning the impact of multidisciplinary care on key measures of lung cancer outcomes is reviewed. This includes the limited observational data supporting improved survival with multidisciplinary care. The impact of multidisciplinary care on other benchmark measures of quality lung cancer treatment is also examined, including staging accuracy, access to diagnostic investigations, improvements in clinical decision making, better utilization of radiotherapy and palliative care services, and improved quality of life for patients. Health service research suggests that multidisciplinary care improves care coordination, leading to a better patient experience, and reduces variation in care, a problem in lung cancer management that has been identified worldwide. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the multidisciplinary model of care overcomes barriers to treatment, promotes standardized treatment through adherence to guidelines, and allows audit of clinical services and for these reasons is more likely to provide quality care for lung cancer patients. While there is strengthening evidence suggesting that the multidisciplinary model of care contributes to improvements in lung cancer outcomes, more quality studies are needed.

Communication on the Impact of Multidisciplinary Care in a Large Volume Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Program: A Paradoxical Stage Migration toward More Aggressive Disease

Introduction: With the widespread use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), a stage migration to less aggressive prostate cancer (CaP) may be expected in pathological specimens due to over-treatment of low risk disease. It is unclear whether implementation of a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) model would offset this phenomenon. We sought to analyze our database for possible stage migration in prostatectomy specimens in the setting of MDC. Methods: A total of 262 patients who underwent open prostatectomy (OP) from 2004 to 2006 and 757 patients who underwent RARP from 2007 to 2011 were identified from our prospective database. The implementation of MDC occurred concurrently at the time of RARP initiation. Demographic data, pathology, positive margin rates along with standard CaP reporting data were recorded. The two groups were com- pared with regards to percentage of cases stratified by Gleason grade. Results: The number of CaP cases managed at our institution increased considerably after the introduction of robotics and MDC. There was a significant decrease in the patients with Gleason 6 CaP undergoing RARP as compared with OP (p = 0.001). Additionally, RARP was performed on a significantly greater percentage of Gleason 7 disease (p < 0.001). When comparing pathological stage, there was a significant increase in the incidence of pT3 disease following RARP (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The introduction of a MDC and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy did not result in an increased application of surgery for the treatment of low risk prostate cancer. This highlights the impor- tance of MDC in a large volume RARP program. * Corresponding author.

ReCAP: Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Processes of Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Study.

The role of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on cancer care processes is not fully understood. We investigated the impact of MDC on the processes of care at cancer centers within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP). The study used data from patients diagnosed with stage IIB to III rectal cancer, stage III colon cancer, and stage III non–small-cell lung cancer at 14 NCCCP cancer centers from 2007 to 2012. We used an MDC development assessment tool—with levels ranging from evolving MDC (low) to achieving excellence (high)—to measure the level of MDC implementation in seven MDC areas, such as case planning and physician engagement. Descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted regression models quantified the association between MDC implementation and processes of care, including time from diagnosis to treatment receipt. A total of 1,079 patients were examined. Compared with patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting low MDC scores, time to treatment receipt was shorter for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high or moderate MDC scores for physician engagement (hazard ratio [HR] for high physician engagement, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.70 to 4.17; HR for moderate physician engagement, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.89) and longer for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high 2MDC scores for case planning (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85). Results for patients with rectal cancer were qualitatively similar, and there was no statistically significant difference among patients with lung cancer. MDC implementation level was associated with processes of care, and direction of association varied across MDC assessment areas.

Abstract P1-16-02: Multidisciplinary breast cancer care is associated with a higher rate of breast conservation in comparison with non-multidisciplinary care

Abstract Background Mastectomy rates, both therapeutic and prophylactic, are on the rise in the United States. After recent implementation of a multidisciplinary breast clinic for newly diagnosed women at our institution, we sought to examine the impact of multidisciplinary care on surgical decision making. Materials/Methods Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer at our institution are referred to a multidisciplinary breast clinic where they are seen by a team of breast specialists (MDC) or to an individual practitioner (non-MDC) for initial consultation. We retrospectively analyzed rates of breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seen in either setting. For mastectomy cases, we designated the mastectomy as clinically indicated vs not clinically indicated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for breast conservation. T-test and chi-square were used to examine the comparability between MDC and non-MDC cohorts. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the overall prevalence of BCS among MDC and non-MDC cohorts. Stratification analysis was further conducted to examine BCS rates among women in each cohort receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs up front surgery. Results A total of 341 consecutive patients were analyzed, including 202 MDC and 139 non-MDC patients seen in initial consultation between June 2012 and April 2014. The MDC and non-MDC cohorts were statistically equivalent in terms of age, tumor and nodal stage, histology, biomarker status, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and proportion with genetic mutations. In the MDC cohort, 66% underwent BCS vs 42% in the non-MDC cohort (p&amp;lt;0.0001). Of those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 37% in the MDC cohort underwent BCS vs 12% in the non-MDC cohort (p=0.08). Of those proceeding to surgery without neoadjuvant therapy, 70% underwent BCS in the MDC cohort vs 46% in the non-MDC cohort (p&amp;lt;.0001). Among mastectomies performed in the MDC vs non-MDC cohorts, 77% and 41% respectively were clinically indicated (P&amp;lt;.0001). Rates of unnecessary contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were comparable in both groups, 39% (p=0.99). Conclusions Breast cancer patients seen in an MDC setting at the time of initial diagnosis are significantly more likely than women seen in a non-MDC setting to undergo breast conservation. We hypothesize that the MDC model of breast cancer care, via facilitation of more informed medical decision making, may be a viable strategy to curtail rising mastectomy rates in the United States. Citation Format: Caitlin L Gomez, Pin-Chieh Wang, Nicole A Dawson, Robyn L Dvorak, Nova Foster, Anne Hoyt, Sara A Hurvitz, Amy Kusske, Charles Y Tseng, Susan A McCloskey. Multidisciplinary breast cancer care is associated with a higher rate of breast conservation in comparison with non-multidisciplinary care [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-16-02.

Multidisciplinary cancer care: does it improve outcomes?

Multidisciplinary care has been advocated as a solution for increasingly complex treatment decisions in cancer patients. The impact of multidisciplinary care on patient survival has been studied, but evidence is limited by poor methodological quality. Lack of conclusive evidence for increased survival is balanced against improvements in quality of care, guideline adherence, reduction in wait times, and greater satisfaction for patients and care providers.

The Impact of Multidisciplinary Care in a Large Volume Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Program: A Paradoxical Stage Migration toward More Aggressive Disease

Introduction: With the widespread use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), a stage migration to less aggressive prostate cancer (CaP) may be expected in pathological specimens due to over-treatment of low risk disease. It is unclear whether implementation of a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) model would offset this phenomenon. We sought to analyze our database for possible stage migration in prostatectomy specimens in the setting of MDC. Methods: A total of 262 patients who underwent open prostatectomy (OP) from 2004 to 2006 and 757 patients who underwent RARP from 2007 to 2011 were identified from our prospective database. The implementation of MDC occurred concurrently at the time of RARP initiation. Demographic data, pathology, positive margin rates along with standard CaP reporting data were recorded. The two groups were compared with regards to percentage of cases stratified by Gleason grade. Results: The number of CaP cases managed at our institution increased considerably after the introduction of robotics and MDC. There was a significant decrease in the patients with Gleason 6 CaP undergoing RARP as compared with OP (p = 0.001). Additionally, RARP was performed on a significantly greater percentage of Gleason 7 disease (p < 0.001). When comparing pathological stage, there was a significant increase in the incidence of pT3 disease following RARP (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The introduction of a MDC and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy did not result in an increased application of surgery for the treatment of low risk prostate cancer. This highlights the importance of MDC in a large volume RARP program.

Impact of multidisciplinary care in improving outcomes in multiple myeloma patients receiving outpatient autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Impact of multidisciplinary care in improving outcomes in multiple myeloma patients receiving outpatient autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation