Lessons learned and keys to success: Provider experiences during the implementation of virtual oncology tumor boards in the era of COVID‐19

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic required rapid adaptation of multidisciplinary tumor board conferences to a virtual setting; however, there are little data describing the benefits and challenges of using such a platform.Methods: An anonymous quality improvement survey was sent to participants of tumor board meetings at a large academic institution. Participants answered questions pertaining to the relative strengths and weaknesses of in-person and virtual settings.Results: A total of 335 responses (23.3% response rate) were recorded, and 253 met inclusion criteria. Respondents represented 25 different tumor board meetings, with colorectal, breast, and liver (18.6%, 17.0%, and 13.0%, respectively) being the most commonly attended. Virtual tumor boards were equivalent to in-person across 9 of 10 domains queried, while a virtual format was preferred for participation in off-site tumor boards. The lack of networking opportunities was ranked by physicians to be a significant challenge of the virtual format. Consistent leadership and organization, engaged participation of all attendees, and upgrading technology infrastructure were considered critical for success of virtual meetings. Conclusions:The implementation of virtual tumor board meetings has been associated with numerous challenges. However, improving several key aspects can improve participant satisfaction and ensure excellent patient care.

How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants’ perspectives and limitations: A scoping review

“…We discovered a total of 36 papers using our search criteria. The number of studies at each stage of the screening process is shown in Fig 1 . Study designs of included studies were mostly observational cross-sectional studies (n = 15) [7,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Other study designs were retrospective review of records with a cross-sectional survey (n = 12) [5,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41], meeting observations with cross-sectional survey (n = 1) [42], mixedmethod design (n = 3) [43][44][45], embedded study design (n = 1) [46], randomized controlled trials (n = 2) [47,48], descriptive qualitative synthesis using free-text cross-sectional surveys (n = 1) [49], and an anthropological analysis (n = 1) [50].…”

“…One study was published in 1999 [5]. Most studies had populations from VMDTMs based in the United States of America (n = 10) [5,18,21,25,26,33,35,37,38,46], followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8) [7,17,22,23,43,44,47,48]. The distribution of these studies is described in the S5 File.…”

“…A few participants in the study by Bonanno N et al found it easier because of less people spoke simultaneously [19]. However, when compared to IMDTMs, overlap during conversations may exist, and may pose a considerable hurdle for trainees [21]. Although a majority of the study by Mohamedbhai et al reported that chairing is difficult in VMDTMs compared to IMDTMs [23], participants found leadership in VMDTMs adequate [17,39,49].…”

“…Discussing cases in VMDTMs helps reduce redundancies in patient management [40]. According to multiple studies, the clinical decision process [27] and the comprehensiveness of recommendations [7,19,21] are almost similar between VMDTMs and IMDTMs.…”

“…Up to 70% of respondents in one study opined that VMDTMs improve coordination between hospitals and private clinics [40]. When seeking recommendations from various specialties, VMDTMs provide a comparable level of ease as IMDTMs [21]. VMDTMs also improve communication between specialties [18,19,38], but in comparison to IMDTMs, it may be worse [23].…”