BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) do not always function optimally. MCC members' experiences with and attitudes toward MCCs are explored, and barriers to and facilitators of effective team-working are identified. METHODS: A total of 19 semistructured interviews were conducted with surgeons, oncologists, nurses, and administrators. Interviews explored participants' opinions on MCC attendance, information presentation, case discussion, leadership, team decision-making, and possible improvements to MCC meetings. RESULTS: Nonattendance was associated with not having protected time to attend the MCC. Contributions to MCC discussions were unequal among the participants, and patient-centered information was ignored. Good leadership was necessary to foster inclusive case discussion. Members were positive about MCCs, but protected time, improved case selection, and working in a more structured way were possible improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with previous research: Members of the MCC are positive about the benefits of MCCs, although improving the way MCCs work is a goal.
BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) do not always function optimally. MCC members' experiences with and attitudes toward MCCs are explored, and barriers to and facilitators of effective team-working are identified. METHODS: A total of 19 semistructured interviews were conducted with surgeons, oncologists, nurses, and administrators. Interviews explored participants' opinions on MCC attendance, information presentation, case discussion, leadership, team decision-making, and possible improvements to MCC meetings. RESULTS: Nonattendance was associated with not having protected time to attend the MCC. Contributions to MCC discussions were unequal among the participants, and patient-centered information was ignored. Good leadership was necessary to foster inclusive case discussion. Members were positive about MCCs, but protected time, improved case selection, and working in a more structured way were possible improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with previous research: Members of the MCC are positive about the benefits of MCCs, although improving the way MCCs work is a goal.
Authors: Karlijn J G Schulkes; Carin A M Pouw; Elisabeth J M Driessen; Leontine J R van Elden; Frederiek van den Bos; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Lung Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 2.584
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: Shoko Mori; Cristian Navarrete-Dechent; Tatyana A Petukhova; Erica H Lee; Anthony M Rossi; Michael A Postow; Lara A Dunn; Benjamin R Roman; Vivian T Yin; Daniel G Coit; Travis J Hollmann; Klaus J Busam; Kishwer S Nehal; Christopher A Barker Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 11.908