Project description: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.

Project description:ImportanceWait times for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis are lengthy because of inadequate supply of specialist teams. General pediatricians may be able to diagnose some cases of ASD, thereby reducing wait times.ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy of ASD diagnostic assessments conducted by general pediatricians compared with a multidisciplinary team (MDT).Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective diagnostic study was conducted in and a specialist assessment center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and Ontario general pediatrician practices from June 2016 to March 2020. Children were younger than 5.5 years, referred with a developmental concern, and without an existing ASD diagnosis. Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to February 2022.ExposuresThe pediatrician and MDT each conducted blinded assessments and recorded a decision as to whether the child had ASD.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). A logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with accurate pediatrician assessment for children with or without an ASD diagnosis.ResultsSeventeen pediatricians (12 women [71%]) participated in the study and referred 106 children (79 boys [75%]; mean [SD] age, 41.9 [13.3] months). Sixty participants (57%) were from minoritized racial and ethnic groups (eg, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and multiracial). Seventy-two participants (68%) received a diagnosis of ASD by the MDT. Sensitivity and specificity of the pediatrician assessments compared with MDT were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.67-0.83) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91), respectively. The PPV of the pediatrician assessments was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94) (ie, 89% agreement with the MDT), and NPV was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.49-0.70) (ie, 60% agreement with the MDT). Higher pediatrician certainty (odds ratio [OR], 3.33; 95% CI, 1.71-7.34; P = .001) was associated with increased diagnostic accuracy for children with ASD. Lower accuracy was seen for children with higher Visual Reception subscale developmental skills (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97; P = .001), speaking abilities (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.67; P = .03), and White race (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.10-0.97; P = .04). Age, gender, and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd Edition composite scores were not significantly associated with the accuracy of assessments. All 7 children with a sibling with ASD received an accurate diagnosis; otherwise, no significant factors were identified for accuracy in children without ASD.Conclusions and relevanceThis study of concordance of autism assessment between pediatricians and an expert MDT in young children found high accuracy when general pediatricians felt confident and lower accuracy when ruling out ASD. These findings suggest that children with co-occurring delays may be potential candidates for community assessment.

Project description:BackgroundDiscussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs' efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01-01-1990 to 09-11-2021), using different descriptions of 'MDTM' and 'neoplasm' as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author.ResultsSeventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs.ConclusionsMDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Project description:IntroductionThe optimal treatment plan for patients with cancer is discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Effective meetings require all participants to have collaboration and communication competences. Participating residents (defined as qualified doctors in training to become a specialist) are expected to develop these competences by observing their supervisors. However, the current generation of medical specialists is not trained to work in multidisciplinary teams; currently, training mainly focuses on medical competences. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among residents with respect to learning how to participate competently in MDTMs, and to identify additional training needs regarding their future role in MDTMs, as perceived by residents and specialists.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch residents and medical specialists participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' demographic and professional characteristics (e.g. sex, specialty, training duration, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis.ResultsNineteen residents and 16 specialists were interviewed. Three themes emerged: 1) awareness of the educational function of MDTMs among specialists and residents; 2) characteristics of MDTMs (e.g. time constraints, MDTM regulations) and 3) team dynamics and behaviour. Learning to participate in MDTMs is facilitated by: specialists and residents acknowledging the educational function of MDTMs beyond their medical content, and supervisors fulfilling their teaching role and setting conditions that enable residents to take a participative role (e.g. being well prepared, sitting in the inner circle, having assigned responsibilities). Barriers to residents' MDTM participation were insufficient guidance by their supervisors, time constraints, regulations hindering their active participation, a hierarchical structure of relations, unfamiliarity with the team and personal characteristics of residents (e.g. lack of confidence and shyness). Interviewees indicated a need for additional training (e.g. simulations) for residents, especially to enhance behavioural and communication skills.ConclusionCurrent practice with regard to preparing residents for their future role in MDTMs is hampered by a variety of factors. Most importantly, more awareness of the educational purposes of MDTMs among both residents and medical specialists would allow residents to participate in and learn from oncological MDTMs. Future studies should focus on collaboration competences.

Project description:PurposeHealth literacy is a current Public Health priority in Portugal. The participation of well-informed patients in their care and shared decision making are essential, especially in chronic aggressive and debilitating pathologies such as recurrent or metastatic (R/M) Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC).AimsThis study aimed to characterize R/M HNSCC patients' and caregivers' information needs identified by healthcare professionals (HCPs).MethodsTwo online Focus Groups, one with only medical doctors and the other with other HCPs involved in the treatment of R/M HNSCC patients, were conducted, using a modified Metaplan, Lean or adapted PDCA methodology. The discussions were audio recorded in full and content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software.ResultsTopics addressed were diagnosis, treatment, quality of life, and global evaluation. In general, all experts agreed that only essential information should be cautiously given, according to patients' and caregivers' wishes. It was consensual that patients are given the necessary information to adhere to treatment. Two main barriers were identified: one barrier was associated with verbal communication due to the lack of health literacy of these patients, and the other barrier regarded healthcare access. It was also considered important to remind patients of the daily and social activities that they could and should maintain, as well as providing sufficient social resources and problem-solving training to caregivers.ConclusionsThis qualitative study highlights the complexity of R/M HNSCC patients' care. Immediate availability of psychologists and psychiatrists should be implemented in all centers that treat HNSCC patients. The differences found between the physicians' Focus Group and other HCPs' Focus Group in some of the addressed topics emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary and holistic approach, in a biomedical model integrated with a biopsychosocial model.

Project description:BackgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) management of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) and other bone and joint infections (BJI) is increasingly put into practice. However, studies evaluating the performance of MDTs in this field are scarce. We aimed to assess our MDT for complex BJI by determining the implementation rate of team decisions, analyzing factors associated with non-implementation and evaluating the clinical outcome of patients in whom MDT decisions were not implemented.MethodsAn observational study was conducted on all patients with a PJI or other BJI of which the management was discussed during MDT meetings between 2015 and 2022 in a tertiary care academic hospital. Patient characteristics and MDT data were obtained from electronic patient records. The multidisciplinary team consisted of orthopaedic surgeons, trauma surgeons, infectious diseases specialists and clinical microbiologists. A decision was considered not implemented if the patient did not receive the management that was decided by the MDT. Factors possibly associated with non-implementation were statistically analyzed using logistic regression.ResultsThe analysis included 1321 MDT decisions on 509 patients. The overall implementation rate of MDT decisions was 92%. Reasons for non-implementation were disagreement by the treating surgeon with the MDT regarding the optimal treatment (n = 24, 23%), patient preference for a different treatment (n = 19, 18%), new clinical information not yet available during the MDT meeting that made the physician change management (n = 17, 16%) or unknown (n = 45, 43%). Trauma surgeons were more likely to not implement an MDT decision (odds ratio 2.4, p = 0.01) The cure rate of patients who received a different surgical strategy than decided by the MDT was 33%. The cure rate was lower if a patient chose to deviate from the MDT decision (46%) than when the treating physician chose to deviate from the MDT decision (77%).ConclusionThe implementation rate of decisions made by our complex BJI MDT was high. Furthermore, the current study suggests that non-implementation of MDT decisions on surgical management and non-implementation initiated by the patient lead to poor clinical outcomes. An analysis of MDT decision implementation is a useful tool to evaluate the impact of MDTs and further improve its quality.

Project description:IntroductionNowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed.ResultsThirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice.ConclusionTo make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Dataset Information

Changes in multidisciplinary team decisions in a high volume head and neck oncological center following those made in its preferred partner

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets