Literature DB >> 16322114

Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams.

J M Blazeby1, L Wilson, C Metcalfe, J Nicklin, R English, J L Donovan.   

Abstract

Management decisions for patients with cancer are frequently taken within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). There is little known, however, about decision-making at team meetings and whether MDT decisions are all implemented. This study evaluated team decision-making in upper gastrointestinal cancer. Consecutive MDT treatment decisions were recorded for patients with oesophageal, gastric, pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumours. Implementation of MDT decisions was investigated by examining hospital records. Where decisions were implemented it was recorded as concordant and discordant if the decision changed. Reasons for changes in MDT decisions were identified. 273 decisions were studied and 41 (15.1%) were discordant (not implemented), (95% confidence interval 11.1-20.0%). Looking at the reasons for discordance, 18 (43.9%) were due to co-morbid health issues, 14 (34.2%) related to patient choice and 8 (19.5%) decisions changed when more clinical information was available. For one discordant decision, the reason was not apparent. Discordant decisions were more frequent for patients with pancreatic or gastric carcinoma as compared to oesophageal cancer (P = 0.001). Results show that monitoring concordance between MDT decisions and final treatment implementation is useful to inform team decision-making. For upper gastrointestinal cancer, MDTs require more information about co morbid disease and patient choice to truly optimize the implementation of multi-disciplinary expertise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16322114     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdj102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  57 in total

1.  Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team?

Authors:  F Kee; T Owen; R Leathem
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Multidisciplinary management of cancer patients: chasing a shadow or real value? An overview of the literature.

Authors:  J M Croke; S El-Sayed
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  How Effective Is the Multidisciplinary Team Approach in Bariatric Surgery?

Authors:  Naomi Laura Bullen; Jitesh Parmar; Jeremy Gilbert; Michael Clarke; Allwyn Cota; Ian Gerard Finlay
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 4.  Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations.

Authors:  Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Multidisciplinary clinical approach to the management of head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Patrick J Bradley
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Multidisciplinary team meeting in digestive oncology: when opinions differ.

Authors:  Alban Zarzavadjian Le Bian; Renato Costi; Audrey Bruderer; Christian Herve; Claude Smadja
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 4.689

7.  Development and testing of the cancer multidisciplinary team meeting observational tool (MDT-MOT).

Authors:  Jenny Harris; Cath Taylor; Nick Sevdalis; Rozh Jalil; James S A Green
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 2.038

8.  The impact of contemporary multidisciplinary meetings on workload at a tertiary level hospital.

Authors:  E Aherne; H Moriarty; M Egan; L P Lawler
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 1.568

9.  An Association of Cancer Physicians' strategy for improving services and outcomes for cancer patients.

Authors:  Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2016-01-05

Review 10.  Pulmonary metastasectomy: a common practice based on weak evidence.

Authors:  Tom Treasure
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.