Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings : A survey in Swedish cancer care
Rosell, Linn LU
; Alexandersson, Nathalie
; Hagberg, Oskar
LU
and Nilbert, Mef
LU
(2018)
In BMC Health Services Research
18(1).
- Abstract
Background: Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers. Methods: In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation. Results: The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and... (More)
Background: Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers. Methods: In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation. Results: The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports. Conclusions: Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.
(Less)
- author
- Rosell, Linn
LU
; Alexandersson, Nathalie
; Hagberg, Oskar
LU
and Nilbert, Mef
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2018-04-05
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Cross-sectional study, Health care survey, Multidisciplinary team conference, Patient preferences, Tumor board
- in
- BMC Health Services Research
- volume
- 18
- issue
- 1
- article number
- 249
- publisher
- BioMed Central (BMC)
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85044950298
- pmid:29622020
- ISSN
- 1472-6963
- DOI
- 10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- ba8a709b-0a4d-4b6b-b33c-ea8120781f1d
- date added to LUP
- 2018-04-18 14:48:55
- date last changed
- 2024-04-15 06:41:56
@article{ba8a709b-0a4d-4b6b-b33c-ea8120781f1d,
abstract = {{<p>Background: Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers. Methods: In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation. Results: The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports. Conclusions: Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.</p>}},
author = {{Rosell, Linn and Alexandersson, Nathalie and Hagberg, Oskar and Nilbert, Mef}},
issn = {{1472-6963}},
keywords = {{Cross-sectional study; Health care survey; Multidisciplinary team conference; Patient preferences; Tumor board}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{04}},
number = {{1}},
publisher = {{BioMed Central (BMC)}},
series = {{BMC Health Services Research}},
title = {{Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings : A survey in Swedish cancer care}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4}},
doi = {{10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4}},
volume = {{18}},
year = {{2018}},
}