Cargando…

Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study

BACKGROUND: The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the proces...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hahlweg, Pola, Didi, Sarah, Kriston, Levente, Härter, Martin, Nestoriuc, Yvonne, Scholl, Isabelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5693525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29149872
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5
_version_ 1783279961850773504
author Hahlweg, Pola
Didi, Sarah
Kriston, Levente
Härter, Martin
Nestoriuc, Yvonne
Scholl, Isabelle
author_facet Hahlweg, Pola
Didi, Sarah
Kriston, Levente
Härter, Martin
Nestoriuc, Yvonne
Scholl, Isabelle
author_sort Hahlweg, Pola
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation. METHODS: An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5693525
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56935252017-11-24 Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study Hahlweg, Pola Didi, Sarah Kriston, Levente Härter, Martin Nestoriuc, Yvonne Scholl, Isabelle BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation. METHODS: An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5693525/ /pubmed/29149872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hahlweg, Pola
Didi, Sarah
Kriston, Levente
Härter, Martin
Nestoriuc, Yvonne
Scholl, Isabelle
Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
title Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
title_full Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
title_fullStr Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
title_full_unstemmed Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
title_short Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
title_sort process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5693525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29149872
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5
work_keys_str_mv AT hahlwegpola processqualityofdecisionmakinginmultidisciplinarycancerteammeetingsastructuredobservationalstudy
AT didisarah processqualityofdecisionmakinginmultidisciplinarycancerteammeetingsastructuredobservationalstudy
AT kristonlevente processqualityofdecisionmakinginmultidisciplinarycancerteammeetingsastructuredobservationalstudy
AT hartermartin processqualityofdecisionmakinginmultidisciplinarycancerteammeetingsastructuredobservationalstudy
AT nestoriucyvonne processqualityofdecisionmakinginmultidisciplinarycancerteammeetingsastructuredobservationalstudy
AT schollisabelle processqualityofdecisionmakinginmultidisciplinarycancerteammeetingsastructuredobservationalstudy