Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review

Abstract

Background MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement. Methods Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type. Results The search returned 7930 results. 18 studies were included. In total 7 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2 to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork. Conclusions Several tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement. Trial registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42021234326.

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

“…But going forward, teams need to be supported to address areas important to them such as streamlining. There are various teamworking tools 36 , 37 available to support this change but the involvement of hospital management is paramount early on, to facilitate this.…”

Optimizing the structure of interdisciplinary tumor boards for effective cancer care

“…As expected, and due to increasing numbers of cancer diagnoses in general ( 21 ), our data show a continuously growing number of cancer patients that need to be discussed in ITBs. Checklists can help with preparation of the ITB discussion to enable better decision-making and improvements in quality ( 12 , 22 , 23 ). Our revised forms for ITB patient registration serve as a checklist for each physician to prepare all the information needed for optimal presentation during the ITB.…”

BeTTer Outcomes Workgroup Health Quality Initiative to optimize bone health for prostate cancer patients in the British Columbia Cancer System

“…Key challenges to implementing HQI projects of multidisciplinary nature are clinician availability, adequate center capacity and resourcing, coordination of team efforts across multiple areas of expertise and need for strong team leadership. [38][39][40][41][42][43] Limited resourcing and capacity resulted in premature cancellation of the project in one center (Kelowna) and failure to implement the main HQI initiative in another (Vancouver). Merge of MDTs from two centers (Surrey and Abbottsford) was an adaptation mechanism used that is associated with increased capacity and reductions in overall and individual participant burden.…”