Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meeting Structure and Treatment Decisions: A Prospective Correlational Study

  • Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Anecdotally, organizational factors appear to have an effect on the quality of decision-making in the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. We assess the effect of the number of team-members present, number and order of cases, and the timing of meetings on the process of decision-making in MDT meetings.

Methods

Between December 2009 and January 2010, data were prospectively collected on treatment decisions, meeting characteristics, quality of information, and teamworking for all cases discussed at a London-based MDT meeting. Variables measured using a validated assessment tool (MDT MODe) and correlational analyses were performed.

Results

Treatment decisions were reached in 254 of 298 (85 %) cases. Cases toward the end of meetings were associated with lower rates of decision-making, information quality, and teamworking (r = −0.15 to −0.37). Increased number of cases per meeting and team members in attendance were associated with better information and teamworking (r = 0.29–0.43). More time per case was associated with improved teamworking (r = 0.16). A positive correlation was obtained between ability to reach decisions and improved information and teamworking (r = 0.36–0.54; all P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

Organizational factors related to the structure of the MDT meeting are associated with variation in the likelihood of reaching a treatment decision. Further research is required to establish causation and to modify such factors in order to improve the quality of cancer care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340: c951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on cancer services improving outcomes in urological cancers. The Manual. London, UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The Department of Health. Manual for cancer services. London, UK: The Department of Health, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Circulaire DGS/DH/AFS n° 98-213 Relative a l’organisation des soins en cancerologie dans les etablissements d’hospitalisation publics et prives. Paris, France. 1998;98[17]:177–191.

  5. American College of Surgeons: Commission on cancer. Cancer program standards. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2004, revised 2009. http://facs.org/cancer/coc/programstandards.html. Accessed 1 February 2012.

  6. McAvoy B. Optimising cancer care in Australia. Melbourne: National Cancer Control Initiative. Aust Fam Physician. 2003;32:369-72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lamb B, Brown K, Nagpal K, Vincent C, Green JSA, Sevdalis N. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2116-25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Newman E, Guest A, Helvie M, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumour board. Cancer. 2006;107:2343-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hong NJ, Wright FC, Gagliardi AR, Paszat LF. Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102:125-34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bogenstätter Y, Tschan F, Semmer NK, Spychiger M, Breuer M, Marsch S. How accurate is information transmitted to medical professionals joining a medical emergency? A simulator study. Hum Factors. 2009;51(2)115-25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Larson JR, Christensen C, Franz TM, Abbott AS. Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(1)93-108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D. Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;91(6)1080-93.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jones P, Roelofsma MP. The potential for social, contextual and group biases in team decision making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics. 2000;43(8):1129–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape L, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996;6:512–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coulter I, Adams A, Shekelle P. Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels: a comparison of a multi- and single disciplinary panel. Health Serv Res. 1995;30:577–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamb B, Green JSA, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol. 2011;20:163-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Houssami N, Sainsbury R. Breast cancer: multidisciplinary care and clinical outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:2480-91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, Burns HJ, Morrison DS. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13,722 women. BMJ. 2012;344:e2718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leo F, Venissac N, Poudenx M, et al. Multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: how to test its efficacy? J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:69-72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stalfors J, Lundberg C, Westin T. Quality assessment of a multidisciplinary tumour meeting for patients with head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh). 2007;127:82-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lamb B, Wong H, Vincent C, Green JSA, Sevdalis N. Teamwork and team performance in urological multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational assessment tool. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:849-56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Mostafid H, Vincent C, Green JSA. Teamwork and clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer teams: prospective multimethod investigation using cross-validated assessment tools. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3535-43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hull L, Arora S, Kassab E, Kneebone RL, Sevdalis N. Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS): content validation and tool refinement. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:234-43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sevdalis N, Lyons M, Healey AN, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent CA. Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery: construct validation with expert vs. novice raters. Ann Surg. 2009;249:1047-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, et al. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004;239:475-82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Undre S, Arora S, Sevdalis N. Surgical performance, human error and patient safety in urological surgery. BJMSU. 2009;2:2-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey Programme. 2010 National Survey Report. London, UK: Department of Health, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor C, Sippitt JM, Collins G, McManus C, Richardson A, Dawson J, Richards M, Ramirez AJ. A pre-post test evaluation of the impact of the PELICAN MDT-TME Development Programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Taylor C, Vincent C, Green JS (2012) Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey. Ann. Oncol. 23(5):1293-300 Epub 2011 Oct 19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research through the Imperial Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality and Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust Urology and R&D Departments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 5th Floor Medical School Building, St. Mary’s Hospital, London, W2 1PG, UK

    B. W. Lamb, N. Sevdalis, J. Benn & C. Vincent

  2. Department of Urology, Whipps Cross University Hospital, London, UK

    B. W. Lamb & J. S. A. Green

Authors
  1. B. W. Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Sevdalis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Benn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. S. A. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. W. Lamb.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 50 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamb, B.W., Sevdalis, N., Benn, J. et al. Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meeting Structure and Treatment Decisions: A Prospective Correlational Study. Ann Surg Oncol 20, 715–722 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2691-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2691-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation