Cargando…

A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system

BACKGROUND: Globally, Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other conditions, but variability in performance has led to demand for improvement tools. MDT‐FIT (Multidisciplinary Team Feedback for Improving Teamwork) is an improvement...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Cath, Harris, Jenny, Stenner, Karen, Sevdalis, Nick, Green, S A James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926008/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33480191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3719
_version_ 1783659376668573696
author Taylor, Cath
Harris, Jenny
Stenner, Karen
Sevdalis, Nick
Green, S A James
author_facet Taylor, Cath
Harris, Jenny
Stenner, Karen
Sevdalis, Nick
Green, S A James
author_sort Taylor, Cath
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Globally, Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other conditions, but variability in performance has led to demand for improvement tools. MDT‐FIT (Multidisciplinary Team Feedback for Improving Teamwork) is an improvement programme developed iteratively with over 100 MDTs (≥1100 MDT‐members). Complex interventions are often adapted to context, but this is rarely evaluated. We conducted a prospective evaluation of the implementation of MDT‐FIT across an entire integrated care system (ICS). METHODS: MDT‐FIT was implemented within all breast cancer MDTs across an ICS in England (n = 10 MDTs; 275 medical, nursing, and administrative members). ICS managers coordinated the implementation across the three stages of MDT‐FIT: set up; assessment (self‐report by team members plus independent observational assessment); team‐feedback and facilitated discussion to agree actions for improvement. Data were collected using process and systems logs, and interviews with a purposively selected range of participants. Analysis was theoretically grounded in evidence‐based frameworks for implementation strategies and outcomes. RESULTS: All 10 MDTs participated in MDT‐FIT; 36 interviews were conducted. Data from systems and process logs covered a 9‐month period. Adaptations to MDT‐FIT by the ICS (e.g., coordination of team participation by ICS rather than individual hospitals; and reducing time protected for coordination) reduced Fidelity and Adoption of MDT‐FIT. However, the Acceptability, Appropriateness and Feasibility of MDT‐FIT remained high due to embedding implementation strategies in the development of MDT‐FIT (e.g., stakeholder engagement, interactive support). CONCLUSIONS: This is a unique and comprehensive evaluation of the multi‐site implementation of a complex team improvement programme. Findings support the imperative of considering implementation strategies when designing such programmes to minimize potentially negative impacts of adaptations in “real world” settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7926008
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79260082021-03-12 A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system Taylor, Cath Harris, Jenny Stenner, Karen Sevdalis, Nick Green, S A James Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Globally, Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other conditions, but variability in performance has led to demand for improvement tools. MDT‐FIT (Multidisciplinary Team Feedback for Improving Teamwork) is an improvement programme developed iteratively with over 100 MDTs (≥1100 MDT‐members). Complex interventions are often adapted to context, but this is rarely evaluated. We conducted a prospective evaluation of the implementation of MDT‐FIT across an entire integrated care system (ICS). METHODS: MDT‐FIT was implemented within all breast cancer MDTs across an ICS in England (n = 10 MDTs; 275 medical, nursing, and administrative members). ICS managers coordinated the implementation across the three stages of MDT‐FIT: set up; assessment (self‐report by team members plus independent observational assessment); team‐feedback and facilitated discussion to agree actions for improvement. Data were collected using process and systems logs, and interviews with a purposively selected range of participants. Analysis was theoretically grounded in evidence‐based frameworks for implementation strategies and outcomes. RESULTS: All 10 MDTs participated in MDT‐FIT; 36 interviews were conducted. Data from systems and process logs covered a 9‐month period. Adaptations to MDT‐FIT by the ICS (e.g., coordination of team participation by ICS rather than individual hospitals; and reducing time protected for coordination) reduced Fidelity and Adoption of MDT‐FIT. However, the Acceptability, Appropriateness and Feasibility of MDT‐FIT remained high due to embedding implementation strategies in the development of MDT‐FIT (e.g., stakeholder engagement, interactive support). CONCLUSIONS: This is a unique and comprehensive evaluation of the multi‐site implementation of a complex team improvement programme. Findings support the imperative of considering implementation strategies when designing such programmes to minimize potentially negative impacts of adaptations in “real world” settings. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7926008/ /pubmed/33480191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3719 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Taylor, Cath
Harris, Jenny
Stenner, Karen
Sevdalis, Nick
Green, S A James
A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system
title A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system
title_full A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system
title_fullStr A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system
title_full_unstemmed A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system
title_short A multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (MDT‐FIT) across a large integrated cancer system
title_sort multi‐method evaluation of the implementation of a cancer teamwork assessment and feedback improvement programme (mdt‐fit) across a large integrated cancer system
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926008/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33480191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3719
work_keys_str_mv AT taylorcath amultimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT harrisjenny amultimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT stennerkaren amultimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT sevdalisnick amultimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT greensajames amultimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT taylorcath multimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT harrisjenny multimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT stennerkaren multimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT sevdalisnick multimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem
AT greensajames multimethodevaluationoftheimplementationofacancerteamworkassessmentandfeedbackimprovementprogrammemdtfitacrossalargeintegratedcancersystem