Systematic evaluation of decision-making in multidisciplinary breast cancer teams: A prospective, cross-sectional study

How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary case reviews in cancer care? Feasibility analysis of a theory-driven team decision-making fidelity framework

“…Hence the case reviews were led either by surgeons, oncologists, or both (surgeons and oncologists), and to a lesser extent surgeons and CNSs where the nurse presented the case and contributed to the discussion, but the surgeon led the discussion and made the decision. This finding is supported by previous studies showing asymmetries in participation with surgeons and oncologists most commonly contributing to case reviews [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature

“…A number of studies have used a validated observational tool, MDT-MODe (Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary teams), to assess decision-making processes across different specialties, including the breast, urology, lung and colorectal cancers. 18 , 32 , 41 , 42 , 44 – 47 For instance, Lamb et al 22 revealed that the ability of an MDT 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, and cases that are discussed at the beginning of meetings. However, high-quality information and team contribution were positively correlated with the larger team size, higher number of cases per meeting, and longer case discussions.…”

An Integrated Literature Review of Time-on-Task Effects With a Pragmatic Framework for Understanding and Improving Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Oncology Team Meetings

“…The currently outstanding question, therefore, may not be so much concerning the why component, i.e., why convene MDMs, but the how – i.e., how to make them more effective and efficient. This is an important question to address since converging evidence shows that although cancer survival rates may be improved by MDMs (Kesson et al, 2012), performance in MDMs is variable with commonly occurring patterns of unequal specialist participation and suboptimal information sharing (Fleissig et al, 2006; Tattersall, 2006; Lamb et al, 2011, 2013a, Lingard et al, 2011; Arora et al, 2012; Jalil et al, 2013; Seretis et al, 2014; Soukup et al, 2016a,b).…”