<p>Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers’ Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?</p>

Abstract

Objective: Recent studies from Germany show that a small amount of breast and gynecological cancer patients participate in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) at some cancer centers. One reason for the variation by center might be the providers' attitudes about and experiences with MTC patient participation (MTCpp), which has not been analyzed before. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to analyze the providers' expected or experienced feasibility concerning MTCpp at breast and gynecological cancer centers in Germany. Methods: This paper presents cross-sectional qualitative interview data from the PINTU study. From April to December 2018, n=30 health-care providers from n=6 breast and gynecological cancer centers in North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. Onehalf of the providers had no experience and the other half had experience with MTCpp. Inductive and deductive coding was performed in order to capture the feasibility aspects of participation. Results: MTCpp seems not to be feasible in routine cancer care following providers' expected barriers and negative experiences. However, MTCpp seems to be feasible for selected cancer patients following providers' expected opportunities and positive experiences. Our results show that both provider groups report positive and negative experiences or expectations. Conclusion: The mixed findings regarding expected or experienced feasibility of MTCpp provide first insights into differences concerning MTCpp between organizations. Our results suggest that the providers' perceptions (expectations and experiences) influence the possibility for patients to participate in an MTC in a cancer center.

Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer

“…The extended board may also encompass nuclear medicine specialists, nutritionists, palliative and rehabilitation care physicians, patients' advocacy representatives, research nurses, or other specialists, and in academic centers also students and postdoctoral fellows [6]. Very recently, a cross-sectional qualitative interview study on breast and gynecological cancer MTB explored patients' participation in tumor conferences at six cancer centers in Germany with conflicting results [7]. Besides the fact that half of the health providers had no experience in such settings, the study concluded that routine patients' participation in MTD was not feasible due to providers' barriers and negative experiences.…”

Virtual Multidisciplinary Review of a Complex Case Using a Digital Clinical Decision Support Tool to Improve Workflow Efficiency

“…The consideration of including the patient in MDT meetings must take into account various factors. These include the healthcare provider’s view and what they are willing to discuss in front of the patient, 7 as well as how much the patient may contribute or hinder the conversation. A potential benefit to including the patient would be to allow them to ask questions or share their treatment preferences.…”

“…Selection of the patients to include in an MDT must be prioritized to those that have a complex history and need for a variety of expertise. 7 It is necessary to bring the relevant information quickly to the clinician to make the best decision for the patient. Virtual MDT meetings have been emerging as essential to deliver optimal healthcare for complex cases in a remote setting, 8 with examples of clinicians stating that virtual MDTs provide the same standard of care as face-to-face MDTs.…”

Multidisziplinäre Tumorkonferenzen in Deutschland

“…Dies kann beispielsweise durch die Einbindung von Pflegepersonal (Knötgen 2020;Rosell et al 2018) oder die Teilnahme von Patientinnen und Patienten an MTK (Diekmann et al 2020;Heuser et al 2019;Bate et al 2019;Hahlweg et al 2015) erreicht werden. Letzteres wird wiederum nur in einzelnen Zentren umgesetzt und von der Ärzteschaft unterschiedlich bewertet (Heuser et al 2020).…”