Advanced

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)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
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
external identifiers
  • pmid:29622020
  • scopus:85044950298
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
2020-04-07 04:49:02
@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},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {04},
  number       = {1},
  publisher    = {BioMed Central},
  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},
}