TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings

T2 - a survey in Swedish cancer care

AU - Rosell, Linn

AU - Alexandersson, Nathalie

AU - Hagberg, Oskar

AU - Nilbert, Mef

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - BACKGROUND: Case 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.METHODS: In 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.RESULTS: The 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.CONCLUSIONS: Health 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.

AB - BACKGROUND: Case 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.METHODS: In 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.RESULTS: The 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.CONCLUSIONS: Health 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.

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Attitude of Health Personnel

KW - Cross-Sectional Studies

KW - Female

KW - Health Personnel/organization & administration

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Neoplasms/therapy

KW - Patient Care Team/organization & administration

KW - Physicians/organization & administration

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Sweden

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4

DO - 10.1186/s12913-018-2990-4

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29622020

VL - 18

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 249

ER -