Skip to main content

Development and Evaluation of a Checklist to Support Decision Making in Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: MDT-QuIC

Annals of Surgical Oncology volume 19, pages 1759–1765 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalised patients. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Calland JF, Guerlain S, Adams RB, Tribble CG, Foley E, Chekan EG. A systems approach to surgical safety. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1005–14.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004;239:475–82.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy; 2000.

  5. Lingard L, Regehr G, Orser B, Reznick R, Baker GR, Doran D, et al. Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. Arch Surg. 2008;143:12–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2725–32.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pronovost P, Berenholtz S, Dorman T, Lipsett PA, Simmonds T, Haraden C. Improving communication in the ICU using daily goals. J Crit Care. 2003;18:71–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haynes A, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:491–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lamb B, Brown K, Nagpal K, Vincent C, Green JSA, Sevdalis N. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2116–25. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1675-6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Manual for cancer services. London: The Department of Health; 2004.

  11. Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, Griffith C, Trevatt P, Richards M, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: What is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340:c951. doi:10.1136/bmj.c951.

  12. Newman E, Guest A, Helvie M, Roubidoux MA, Chang AE, Kleer CG, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;107:2343–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, Dawson J, Scully J, West M, et al. Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:15–22.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kidger J, Murdoch J, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM. Clinical decision-making in a multidisciplinary gynaecological cancer team: a qualitative study. BJOG. 2009;116:511–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamb B, Sevdalis N, Mostafid H, Vincent C, Green JS. Quality improvement in multidisciplinary cancer teams: an investigation of teamwork and clinical decision-making and cross-validation of assessments. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3535–43.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Blazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, Nicklin J, English R, Donovan JL. Analysis of clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:457–60.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wood JJ, Metcalfe C, Paes A, Sylvester P, Durdey P, Thomas MG, et al. An evaluation of treatment decisions at a colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary team. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:769–72.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048660.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lamb B, Sevdalis N, Arora S, Pinto A, Vincent C, Green JSA. Teamwork and team decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer conferences: barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for improvement. World J Surg. 2011;35:1970–6. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1152-1.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hales BM, Pronovost PJ. The checklist—a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care. 2006;21:231–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, Widhiasmara PP, Dankelman J. Requirements for the design and implementation of checklists for surgical processes. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:715–26.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hales B, Terblanche M, Fowler R, Sibbald W. Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20:22–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Winters BD, Gurses AP, Lehmann H, Sexton JB, Rampersad CJ, Pronovost PJ. Clinical review: checklists—translating evidence into practice. Crit Care. 2009;13:210.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lanceley A, Savage J, Menon U, Jacobs I. Influences on multidisciplinary team decisionmaking. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:215–22.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lamb B, Green JSA, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol. 2010;20:163–8. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2010.07.007.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamb BW, Allchorne P, Sevdalis N, Vincent C, Green JSA. The role of the cancer nurse specialist in the urology multidisciplinary team meeting. Int J Urol Nurs. 2011;5:59–64. doi:10.1111/j.1749-771X.2011.01119.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Taylor C, Vincent C, Green JS. Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey. Ann Oncol. 2011;19 Oct (Epub ahead of print).

  29. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, et al. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1628–38.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. NHS Summary Care Record. http://www.somersetpct.nhs.uk/welcome/services/nhs-summary-care-record/. Accessed 27 June 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work 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 R&D Department.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

    B. W. Lamb MRCS, N. Sevdalis PhD & C. Vincent PhD

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

    B. W. Lamb MRCS & J. S. A. Green FRCS, Urol.

Authors
  1. B. W. Lamb MRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Sevdalis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Vincent PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. S. A. Green FRCS, Urol.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. W. Lamb MRCS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamb, B.W., Sevdalis, N., Vincent, C. et al. Development and Evaluation of a Checklist to Support Decision Making in Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: MDT-QuIC. Ann Surg Oncol 19, 1759–1765 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2187-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2187-0

Keywords

  • Team Member
  • Professional Group
  • Electronic Patient Record
  • Case Discussion
  • Core Team Member