PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary cancer care is a standard feature of high quality care. In many centers, the multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) is an integral component. A qualitative study was performed to explore health professionals' attitudes towards this model of care, the decision making processes, and dynamics among team members. METHODS: A series of focus groups was conducted with health professionals who attend MDMs at our institution. Focus groups followed a semistructured format with open-ended questions. A thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four focus groups were held, attended by 23 participants including allied health professionals, specialist nurses, medical oncologists, and surgeons. All participants believed the primary objective of the MDM was to develop an individualized treatment plan. Several other key themes emerged. The MDM provided opportunities to improve communication, efficiency, and education as well as enhance professional relationships. Medical information was prioritized ahead of psychosocial details, with allied health professionals describing difficulty contributing to MDM discussion. Patient attendance at MDMs was opposed by health professionals because of concerns about the patient's ability to cope with the information discussed and the effect their presence would have on the dynamics of the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Health professionals endorse MDMs as a useful tool in treating patients with cancer. Within this forum, both opportunities and constrains exist, with many benefits extending beyond the meeting itself into other clinical areas. Further study is warranted to establish an evidence base to ensure that both the possibilities and the limitations of this model of care are fully understood.
PURPOSE:Multidisciplinary cancer care is a standard feature of high quality care. In many centers, the multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) is an integral component. A qualitative study was performed to explore health professionals' attitudes towards this model of care, the decision making processes, and dynamics among team members. METHODS: A series of focus groups was conducted with health professionals who attend MDMs at our institution. Focus groups followed a semistructured format with open-ended questions. A thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four focus groups were held, attended by 23 participants including allied health professionals, specialist nurses, medical oncologists, and surgeons. All participants believed the primary objective of the MDM was to develop an individualized treatment plan. Several other key themes emerged. The MDM provided opportunities to improve communication, efficiency, and education as well as enhance professional relationships. Medical information was prioritized ahead of psychosocial details, with allied health professionals describing difficulty contributing to MDM discussion. Patient attendance at MDMs was opposed by health professionals because of concerns about the patient's ability to cope with the information discussed and the effect their presence would have on the dynamics of the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Health professionals endorse MDMs as a useful tool in treating patients with cancer. Within this forum, both opportunities and constrains exist, with many benefits extending beyond the meeting itself into other clinical areas. Further study is warranted to establish an evidence base to ensure that both the possibilities and the limitations of this model of care are fully understood.
Authors: Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kathleen M Castro; James F Gardner; Jinani Jayasekera; Olga Goloubeva; Ming T Tan; Erica J McNamara; Howard A Zaren; Thomas Asfeldt; James D Bearden; Andrew L Salner; Mark J Krasna; Irene Prabhu Das; Steve B Clauser; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kathleen M Castro; James F Gardner; Jinani Jayasekera; Olga Goloubeva; Ming T Tan; Erica J McNamara; Howard A Zaren; Thomas Asfeldt; James D Bearden; Andrew L Salner; Mark J Krasna; Irene Prabhu Das; Steve B Clauser Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: M Silbermann; B Pitsillides; N Al-Alfi; S Omran; K Al-Jabri; K Elshamy; I Ghrayeb; J Livneh; M Daher; H Charalambous; A Jafferri; R Fink; M El-Shamy Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Eliot L Friedman; Neetu Chawla; Paul T Morris; Kathleen M Castro; Angela C Carrigan; Irene Prabhu Das; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Thomas M Churilla; Brian L Egleston; Colin T Murphy; Elin R Sigurdson; Shelly B Hayes; Lori J Goldstein; Richard J Bleicher Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Satish K Kedia; Kenneth D Ward; Siri A Digney; Bianca M Jackson; April L Nellum; Laura McHugh; Kristina S Roark; Orion T Osborne; Fayre J Crossley; Nicholas Faris; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2015-08
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: René Adam; Aimery De Gramont; Joan Figueras; Ashley Guthrie; Norihiro Kokudo; Francis Kunstlinger; Evelyne Loyer; Graeme Poston; Philippe Rougier; Laura Rubbia-Brandt; Alberto Sobrero; Josep Tabernero; Catherine Teh; Eric Van Cutsem Journal: Oncologist Date: 2012-09-07