OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors that influence treatment decision-making in a gynaecological cancer team (MDT). DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews and observations. SETTING: Gynaecological cancer MDT meetings and participants' offices. SAMPLE: A gynaecological cancer MDT and members of that team. METHODS: Observations of ten MDT meetings and semistructured interviews with 16 team members. Data analysis using the constant comparison technique of grounded theory and ethnography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors affecting treatment decisions in the MDT meetings. RESULTS: Disease-centred information was central to decision-making, whereas patient-centred factors such as patient choice and co-morbidity were more peripheral. This was partly due to variation in team members' type and level of participation: senior clinicians occupied the most dominant roles in discussions and decision-making, whereas nurses contributed less but were more likely to focus on patient-related factors. Three main decision-making pathways emerged: a short discussion followed by a clear decision, a prolonged discussion ending in a definite treatment plan, and a lengthy discussion with no clearly stated decision at the end. The type of pathway followed depended on a case's complexity and the extent of agreement among team members. CONCLUSIONS: The process of treatment decision-making was not consistent for all women but was affected by factors such as the complexity of the case, which team members participated, and the extent of team members' agreement. Improvements are needed to ensure patient-centred information is included for all women and that clear decisions are reached and recorded in all cases.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors that influence treatment decision-making in a gynaecological cancer team (MDT). DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews and observations. SETTING: Gynaecological cancer MDT meetings and participants' offices. SAMPLE: A gynaecological cancer MDT and members of that team. METHODS: Observations of ten MDT meetings and semistructured interviews with 16 team members. Data analysis using the constant comparison technique of grounded theory and ethnography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors affecting treatment decisions in the MDT meetings. RESULTS: Disease-centred information was central to decision-making, whereas patient-centred factors such as patient choice and co-morbidity were more peripheral. This was partly due to variation in team members' type and level of participation: senior clinicians occupied the most dominant roles in discussions and decision-making, whereas nurses contributed less but were more likely to focus on patient-related factors. Three main decision-making pathways emerged: a short discussion followed by a clear decision, a prolonged discussion ending in a definite treatment plan, and a lengthy discussion with no clearly stated decision at the end. The type of pathway followed depended on a case's complexity and the extent of agreement among team members. CONCLUSIONS: The process of treatment decision-making was not consistent for all women but was affected by factors such as the complexity of the case, which team members participated, and the extent of team members' agreement. Improvements are needed to ensure patient-centred information is included for all women and that clear decisions are reached and recorded in all cases.
Authors: Daniel B Sonshine; Amber Caldwell; Richard A Gosselin; Christopher T Born; R Richard Coughlin Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Benjamin W Lamb; Nick Sevdalis; Sonal Arora; Anna Pinto; Charles Vincent; James S A Green Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Armen Aprikian; Peter Black; Girish Kulkarni; Jonathan Izawa; Libni Eapen; Adrian Fairey; Alan So; Scott North; Ricardo Rendon; Srikala S Sridhar; Tarik Alam; Fadi Brimo; Normand Blais; Chris Booth; Joseph Chin; Peter Chung; Darrel Drachenberg; Yves Fradet; Michael Jewett; Ron Moore; Chris Morash; Bobby Shayegan; Geoffrey Gotto; Neil Fleshner; Fred Saad; D Robert Siemens Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Rosalind Raine; Caoimhe Nic a' Bháird; Penny Xanthopoulou; Isla Wallace; David Ardron; Miriam Harris; Julie Barber; Archie Prentice; Simon Gibbs; Michael King; Jane M Blazeby; Susan Michie; Anne Lanceley; Alex Clarke; Gill Livingston Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Paulus A F Geerts; Trudy van der Weijden; Wilma Savelberg; Melis Altan; Giorgio Chisari; Diana Ricarda Launert; Hannah Mesters; Ylva Pisters; Mike van Heumen; Raoul Hermanns; Gerard M J Bos; Albine Moser Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2021-06-04