These findings provide an explanation for the possible reasons why medical oncologists feel hampered in initiating palliative care and consequently discuss it rather late in the disease trajectory. The exploration and description of these barriers may serve as a starting point for revising the medical education of oncologists. They are also a reminder to hospital management and policy makers to be aware of the impact of these barriers on the daily practice of oncology.

Background In current cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) aim at uniting care professionals from different disciplines to decide upon the best possible treatment plan for the patients based on the available scientific evidence. In Belgium, the multidisciplinary approach is mandatory and formally regulated since 2003. Current research indicates that MDTMs are not always truly multidisciplinary, ie, with a mix of medical as well as paramedical disciplines, and that the medical profession (physicians and medical specialists) tends to dominate the interaction in MDTMs. To ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential, significant attention should be devoted to the multidisciplinary character of these meetings. The aim of this study is to explore and describe the multidisciplinary character in MDTMs and how it is actually shaped in practice in different Flemish medical oncology departments. Methods For this study, we carried out an observational comparative case study. We studied 59 multidisciplinary team meetings at inpatient medical oncology departments in five different Belgian hospitals (academic as well as general) and explored multidisciplinarity and how it is actually shaped in practice. Results The study is unique in identifying and analyzing three distinct types of MDTMs. The analysis of the three types revealed an inconsistent and, at times, contradictory picture of multidisciplinary team meetings. The findings also align with previous studies arguing that MDTMs in oncology are typically driven by doctors, with limited input of nurses and other nonmedical staff in which decisions are argued on biomedical information and far less consideration of psychosocial aspects. Conclusion The concept of a MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who work essentially independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Yet, this study has shown a worryingly low awareness of the true character of multidisciplinarity, particularly among medical disciplines.

Background Multidisciplinary teamwork has become the standard in care for oncological patients and their treatment trajectory when comprehensive, holistic, and high-quality cancer care is needed. Working together from a variety of perspectives is difficult to achieve and has well-known pitfalls, such as miscommunication and poor coordination. Objective To describe and synthesize the factors influencing and the processes underlying optimal multidisciplinary teamwork. Methods An integrative review was conducted, guided by the framework of Whittemore and Knafl. The systematic search for literature published since 2010 in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) yielded 49 articles. Results Eighty-eight percent of the included studies focus on multidisciplinary team meetings, rather than on the wider notion of multidisciplinary teamwork. We identified influencing factors on the basis of structural features of the team, hospital, and health system, as well as process features of multidisciplinary teamwork in multidisciplinary team meetings. Conclusion To improve multidisciplinary teamwork, the focus needs to be on the process of collaboration throughout the cancer care trajectory of the patient. A more integrated, interdisciplinary approach should be aimed for to recognize the role and contribution of all disciplines involved. Implications A cultural change is needed toward interdisciplinary practice in hospitals to reach partnership between all involved professionals as part of a participatory, collaborative, and coordinated approach.