OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the position nationally of Colorectal Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) implementation as part of the NHS cancer plan. Also to define nationally patterns of 'bottlenecks' in the patient journey from referral to treatment. METHODS: A simple questionnaire was sent to the lead clinician at all 183 cancer networks asking about their current MDT organization, and whether they had undertaken a mapping exercise of the patient journey. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent (n = 166) of the questionnaires were returned, and of these 90% (n = 150) stated that their MDT meeting was up and running. Sixty-two percent (n = 102) stated they were having problems running their MDT meeting and of these 32% (n = 33) did not have a dedicated MDT clerk. Several of the Calman-Hine identified 'core personnel' are attending infrequently. Sixty-four percent (n = 107) of respondents have carried out a patient mapping process with 65% (n = 70) claiming it was a success, leaving 27% (n = 32) with no immediate plans to undertake the process. CONCLUSIONS: Although MDT activity is near-universal, the survey has highlighted a wide variation in MDT meeting implementation across England, with the same problems being experienced by most centres. Organizational problems are common, and we feel that a dedicated MDT clerk is essential for smooth running. Further areas that require development have been identified by most respondents as radiological, oncological and endoscopic services. It is anticipated that true collaboration nationally will develop, and contact with the nine pilot sites is encouraged to explore solutions to difficulties.
OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the position nationally of Colorectal Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) implementation as part of the NHS cancer plan. Also to define nationally patterns of 'bottlenecks' in the patient journey from referral to treatment. METHODS: A simple questionnaire was sent to the lead clinician at all 183 cancer networks asking about their current MDT organization, and whether they had undertaken a mapping exercise of the patient journey. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent (n = 166) of the questionnaires were returned, and of these 90% (n = 150) stated that their MDT meeting was up and running. Sixty-two percent (n = 102) stated they were having problems running their MDT meeting and of these 32% (n = 33) did not have a dedicated MDT clerk. Several of the Calman-Hine identified 'core personnel' are attending infrequently. Sixty-four percent (n = 107) of respondents have carried out a patient mapping process with 65% (n = 70) claiming it was a success, leaving 27% (n = 32) with no immediate plans to undertake the process. CONCLUSIONS: Although MDT activity is near-universal, the survey has highlighted a wide variation in MDT meeting implementation across England, with the same problems being experienced by most centres. Organizational problems are common, and we feel that a dedicated MDT clerk is essential for smooth running. Further areas that require development have been identified by most respondents as radiological, oncological and endoscopic services. It is anticipated that true collaboration nationally will develop, and contact with the nine pilot sites is encouraged to explore solutions to difficulties.
Authors: Jennifer Walsh; James D Harrison; Jane M Young; Phyllis N Butow; Michael J Solomon; Lindy Masya Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Cath Taylor; Joanna M Sippitt; Gary Collins; Chris McManus; Alison Richardson; Jeremy Dawson; Michael Richards; Amanda J Ramirez Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 2.655