Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care

Abstract

BackgroundCase review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants’ views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation.ResultsThe top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports.ConclusionsHealth professionals’ report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

<p>Health Professionals’ Views on Key Enabling Factors and Barriers of National Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study</p>

“…The research team developed a questionnaire based on an earlier study on health professionals' experiences from local and regional MDTMs. 15 Information about the study and a link to an online questionnaire was distributed to all participants (N=241) by e-mail. Two reminders were sent.…”

The challenge of putting principles into practice: Resource tensions and real‐world constraints in multidisciplinary oncology team meetings

“…Representation of patients’ preferences is largely sought when clinical information cannot decisively inform treatment planning. In these scenarios, the notion of “encountered authority” may be a persuasive factor in decision‐making with the objective that a conclusive recommendation is more likely …”

“…As an example, one study identified a 10% higher trial recruitment rate for colorectal patients managed through an MDT compared to patients not managed through MDT . MDT members in some tumor streams may not perceive MDT meetings to be an apt avenue for identification of patients suitable for clinical trials and most believe it is the responsibility of lead clinicians to identify relevant clinical trials for their patients . However, physician awareness of clinical trials is ad hoc.…”

A Systematic Review of Medical Nutrition Therapy Guidelines for Liver Cirrhosis: Do We Agree?

“…Barriers in guideline implementation include lack of awareness, agreement, self‐efficacy, and outcome expectancy; patient preferences, ability, and behavior; limited time and time pressure by MDs; and reduced resources . As far as adherence to nutrition guidelines is concerned, a holistic multidisciplinary team including a dietitian is important for better delivery of the nutrition information, increased adherence to CPGs, and precise treatment recommendations to improve quality of care and treatment outcomes.…”

“…Lower quality of care, inaccurate treatment recommendations, and higher healthcare costs are attributed to CPG nonadherence. With nutrition being a crucial component of cirrhosis treatment, our study underlines the existing gaps in MNT CPGs and provides evidence for the improvement of future guidelines.…”