Does every patient need to be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting?

Chinai, Natasha; Bintcliffe, F; Armstrong, E.M.; Teape, J.; Jones, Brad; Hosie, Kenneth B.

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.02.011

Cited by 53 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although improving the quality of decision-making and standardising the decision-making process is a laudable aim, it is resource intensive and time consuming [20]. MDT meetings in other countries (often called tumour boards) are varied [3, 9, 15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study

Lamb

Jalil

Sevdalis

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe prevalence of multidisciplinary teams (MDT) for the delivery of cancer care is increasing globally. Evidence exists of benefits to patients and healthcare professionals. However, MDT working is time and resource intensive. This study aims to explore members’ views on existing practices of urology MDT working, and to identify potential interventions for improving the efficiency and productivity of the MDT meeting.MethodsMembers of urology MDTs across the UK were purposively recruited to participate in an online survey. Survey items included questions about the utility and efficiency of MDT meetings, and strategies for improving the efficiency of MDT meetings: treating cases by protocol, prioritising cases, and splitting the MDT into subspeciality meetings.Results173 MDT members participated (Oncologists n = 77, Cancer Nurses n = 54, Urologists n = 30, other specialities n = 12). 68% of respondents reported that attending the MDT meeting improves efficiency in care through improved clinical decisions, planning investigations, helping when discussing plans with patients, speciality referrals, documentation/patient records. Participants agreed that some cases including low risk, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and localised, low-grade prostate cancer could be managed by pre-agreed pathways, without full MDT review. There was a consensus that cases at the MDT meeting could be prioritised by complexity, tumour type, or the availability of MDT members. Splitting the MDT meeting was unpopular: potential disadvantages included loss of efficiency, loss of team approach, unavailability of members and increased administrative work.ConclusionKey urology MDT members find the MDT meeting useful. Improvements in efficiency and effectiveness may be possible by prioritising cases or managing some low-risk cases according to previously agreed protocols. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of such strategies on MDT meetings, cancer care pathways and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study

Lamb

Jalil

Sevdalis

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One study discussing the need for MDTMs raised the issue of delay in decision making due to MDTMs, which is a fair consideration. However, within our survey, 100% either agreed or strongly agreed that our meeting improved patient care and thus should be considered a necessary part of patient management …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

How I Do It: Examining the value of an otology multidisciplinary team meeting

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This conclusion has been primarily based on the observation of improved inter-observer agreement and diagnostic confidence resulting from dynamic interactions among clinicians, radiologists, and pathologists. However, the costs of multidisciplinary team meetings are high and the impact on clinical outcomes is unclear 30– 32 . MDD for the diagnosis of IIPs is likely not a realistic option outside of academic medical centers.…”

Section: Multidisciplinary Discussion or Clinical Reasoning?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Current concepts and dilemmas in idiopathic interstitial pneumonias

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Idiopathic interstitial pneumonias comprise approximately one-third of interstitial lung diseases (also called diffuse parenchymal infiltrative lung diseases). The classification of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias has undergone several revisions since the initial description of 40 years ago, and the most recent version was published in 2013. Although some aspects have been clarified, this group of heterogeneous disorders continues to be a source of confusion and misunderstanding in clinical applications. In this article, we explore several topical themes in the evaluation and management of patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias.

show abstract

Does every patient need to be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting?

Cited by 53 publications

References 7 publications

Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study

Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study

How I Do It: Examining the value of an otology multidisciplinary team meeting

Current concepts and dilemmas in idiopathic interstitial pneumonias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About