2011
DOI: 10.4061/2011/831605
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Evidence, Challenges, and the Role of Clinical Decision Support Technology

Abstract: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) model in cancer care was introduced and endorsed to ensure that care delivery is consistent with the best available evidence. Over the last few years, regular MDT meetings have become a standard practice in oncology and gained the status of the key decision-making forum for patient management. Despite the fact that cancer MDT meetings are well accepted by clinicians, concerns are raised over the paucity of good-quality evidence on their overall impact. There are also concerns over … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
150
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(153 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(40 reference statements)
2
150
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of the quantitative research into the benefits of the MDTM has aimed to demonstrate patient benefits, usually through the application of more treatments and higher levels of coordinated care. Although numbers of cases may be small in individual studies, there is growing evidence to justify the benefits being attributed to MDTMs [16,15,7,8,20]. But there is also an acknowledgement that all of the necessary information must be present, and all of the required roles available for a good discussion.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Effects Of Mdtmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Most of the quantitative research into the benefits of the MDTM has aimed to demonstrate patient benefits, usually through the application of more treatments and higher levels of coordinated care. Although numbers of cases may be small in individual studies, there is growing evidence to justify the benefits being attributed to MDTMs [16,15,7,8,20]. But there is also an acknowledgement that all of the necessary information must be present, and all of the required roles available for a good discussion.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Effects Of Mdtmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Intuitively they are good practice because all of the professional groups are involved in the clinical decisions affecting individual developments has led to this increase in the routine use of MDTMs: (i) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that specify that MDTMs should be used [4], (ii) increasingly specialised healthcare [5], (iii) recognition that diagnostic accuracy can be improved through clinical, radiological and pathology collaboration in the decision [6,2], and (iv) more complex treatment protocols that require high levels of coordination between specialist services [2]. Despite their popularity, it is acknowledged that there is little concrete evidence that patient outcomes benefit from MDT collaboration [7,8]. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, for instance, recommend MDT work but categorise the evidence for this recommendation as Level lll, or Level IV evidence [9], that is, evidence based on quasi-experimental, or observational studies with narrow population spectra, or non-blinded studies (which are considered weak) and professional consensus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, some investigators have expressed concern that tumour boards do not allow for an in-depth review of each individual case because, often, many cases are reviewed in a short time period 22 . Furthermore, weekly tumour boards may not allow for an actual clinical appraisal of the patient by the various providers and do not provide patients with the opportunity to express their preferences and views to the entire team in the context of multiple therapeutic options 23 . In contrast, during a single-day multidisciplinary clinic, the patient's information can be reviewed by a team of providers in "real time" and the providers can all interact with the patient.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The groups of specialists who met to discuss these cases in the USA made up tumour boards [1,2]. Initially these meetings were intended to give specialists the opportunity to keep up to date with new developments relevant to their tumour site, and were an advisory panel which could be consulted by the patient's physician who would consider the opinions offered when deciding how to manage their patient [3].…”
Section: History Of Multidisciplinary Cancer Teamsmentioning
confidence: 99%