A multicentre cross‐sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making

Soukup, Tayana; Lamb, Benjamin; Morbi, Abigail; Shah, Nisha; Bali, Anish; Asher, Viren; Gandamihardja, Tasha; Giordano, Pasquale; Darzi, Ara; Green, James S. A.; Sevdalis, Nick

doi:10.1002/cam4.3366

Cited by 31 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed breakdown of team composition has been published previously. 12,[21][22] Ethical approvals were given by the North West London Research Ethics Committee, and locally by the participating hospitals as part of the original study. 12,22 Oral and written consents were given by the team members.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In phase 1, two meetings were held with experts (BWL, clinical researcher and consultant surgeon, and TS, clinical researcher and psychologist) with >5 years' experience in the use of MODe and evidence 4,9,12 of proficiency with inter-assessor reliability of >0.70. 25 The aim was to design a new tool and to assess content validity against MODe's previous content validation, 9 In phase 2, assessor 1 (BWL) scored a sample of 146 cases, which had previously been assessed with MODe, using the revised shorter version of the tool (MODe-Lite).…”

Section: Tool Development and Validation Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We hypothesised (H2) that MODe-Lite will positively correlate with the MeDiC tool, in line with the previous research using the MODe instrument. 12 In phase 3, both assessors (BWL and TS) trained a new assessor (SM, consultant surgeon) in the use of the shorter version (MODe-Lite) on video recorded tumor boards over two 2h long sessions. The assessors (BWL and SM) scored a subset of cases blinded to each other scores.…”

Section: Tool Development and Validation Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,[7][8][9] MODe has been used to assess decision-making processes across different tumour types in a number of different countries (Box 1). [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] MODe has been applied to show that the ability of an MTB to reach a clinical decision was positively associated with high-quality comprehensive and necessary information available at the point of decision-making (from case history, radiology, pathology), team contribution, 4,[9][10] and cases that are discussed at the beginning of meetings. [10][11] However, high-quality information and team contribution were positively correlated with the larger team size and longer case discussions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[10][11] However, high-quality information and team contribution were positively correlated with the larger team size and longer case discussions. 10,12 Moreover, a complete patient profile and representation by all core disciplines were found necessary to maximize the ability of an MTB to reach management recommendations for all cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Development and validation of a short version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: MODe-Lite

Lamb¹,

Miah²,

Stewart³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence-based tools are necessary for scientifically improving the way cancer multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) work. Such tools are available but can be difficult to use. We sought to develop a robust observational assessment tool for use by healthcare professionals to improve how MTBs work in everyday practice.Participants and methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional observational study in the United Kingdom between September 2015 and July 2016. Three tumor boards from three teaching hospitals were recruited with 44 members overall. Six weekly meetings (146 consecutive cases) were video recorded and scored using the validated MODe tool. Data were subjected to reliability and validity analysis in the current study for the purposes of developing a shorter version of MODe.Results: In phase 1, a reduction in the original items of MODe was achieved through two focus group meetings with expert assessors based on previous research. Twelve original items were reduced to six domains and have received full agreement by the assessors. In Phase 2, the six domains were subjected to item reliability, convergent validation, and internal consistency testing against MODe-Lite global score, MODe global score, and the individual items of MODe. Significant positive correlations were evidenced across the six domains (p<0.01), providing indication of good reliability and validity. In phase 3, feasibility and high inter-assessor reliability in the use of the tool by two clinical assessors was achieved. A final set of 6 domains, measuring clinical input, holistic input, clinical collaboration, pathology, radiology and management plan were integrated into MODe-Lite.Conclusions: MODe-Lite is an evidence-based tool that can be used by healthcare professionals in everyday practice. It can give cancer MTBs insight into the way they work to facilitate improvements in practice.

show abstract

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tool Development and Validation Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tool Development and Validation Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Development and validation of a short version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: MODe-Lite

Lamb¹,

Miah²,

Stewart³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A national mixed‐method survey study

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is not well understood the overall changes that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor the impact that such changes, in addition to the other challenges faced by MDTs, have had on decision-making, communication, or participation in the context of MDT meetings specifically. Methods: This was a mixed method, prospective cross-sectional survey study taking place in the United Kingdom between September 2020 and August 2021. Results: The participants were 423 MDT members. Qualitative findings revealed hybrid working and possibility of virtual attendance as the change introduced because of COVID-19 that MDTs would like to maintain. However, IT-related issues, slower meetings, longer lists and delays were identified as common with improving of the IT infrastructure necessary going forward. In contrast, virtual meetings and increased attendance/availability of clinicians were highlighted as the positive outcomes resulting from the change. Quantitative findings showed significant improvement from before COVID-19 for MDT meeting organisation and logistics (M = 45, SD = 20) compared to the access (M = 50, SD = 12, t(390) = 5.028, p = 0.001), case discussions (M = 50, SD = 14, t(373) = −5.104, p = 0.001), and patient representation (M = 50, SD = 12, t(382) = −4.537, p = 0.001) at MDT meetings. Discussion: Our study explored the perception of change since COVID-19 among cancer MDTs using mixed methods. While hybrid working was preferred, challenges exist.

show abstract

A multicentre cross‐sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 31 publications

References 64 publications

Development and validation of a short version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: MODe-Lite

Development and validation of a short version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: MODe-Lite

Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review

Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A national mixed‐method survey study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About