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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340: c951.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on cancer services improving outcomes in urological cancers. The Manual. London, UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2002.
The Department of Health. Manual for cancer services. London, UK: The Department of Health, 2004.
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.
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.
McAvoy B. Optimising cancer care in Australia. Melbourne: National Cancer Control Initiative. Aust Fam Physician. 2003;32:369-72.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lamb B, Green JSA, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol. 2011;20:163-8.
Houssami N, Sainsbury R. Breast cancer: multidisciplinary care and clinical outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:2480-91.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Undre S, Arora S, Sevdalis N. Surgical performance, human error and patient safety in urological surgery. BJMSU. 2009;2:2-1.
Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey Programme. 2010 National Survey Report. London, UK: Department of Health, 2010.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights 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
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2691-x