AIM: Team performance is important in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), but no tools exist for assessment. Our objective was to construct a robust tool for scientific assessment of MDT performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational tool was developed to assess performance in MDTs. Behaviours were scored on Likert scales, with objective anchors. Five MDT meetings (112 cases) were observed by a surgeon and a psychologist. The presentation of case history, radiological and pathological information, chair's effectiveness, and contributions to decision-making of surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are analysed via descriptive statistics, a comparison of average scores (Mann-Whitney U) to test interobserver agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to further assess interobserver agreement and learning curves. RESULTS: Contributions of surgeons, chair's effectiveness, presentation of case history and radiological information were rated above average (p ≤ 0.001). Contributions of histopathologists and CNS were rated below average (p ≤ 0.001), and others average. The interobserver agreement was high (ICC = 0.70+) for presentation of radiological information, and contribution of oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and CNSs; adequate for case history presentation (ICC = 0.68) and contribution of surgeons (ICC = 0.69); moderate for chairperson (ICC = 0.52); and poor for pathological information (ICC = 0.31). Average differences were found only for case-history presentation (p ≤ 0.001). ICCs improved significantly in assessment of case history, and Oncologists, and ICCs were consistently high for CNS, Radiologists, and Histopathologists. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific observational metrics can be reliably used by medical and non-medical observers in cancer MDTs. Such robust assessment tools provide part of a toolkit for team evaluation and enhancement.
AIM: Team performance is important in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), but no tools exist for assessment. Our objective was to construct a robust tool for scientific assessment of MDT performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational tool was developed to assess performance in MDTs. Behaviours were scored on Likert scales, with objective anchors. Five MDT meetings (112 cases) were observed by a surgeon and a psychologist. The presentation of case history, radiological and pathological information, chair's effectiveness, and contributions to decision-making of surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are analysed via descriptive statistics, a comparison of average scores (Mann-Whitney U) to test interobserver agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to further assess interobserver agreement and learning curves. RESULTS: Contributions of surgeons, chair's effectiveness, presentation of case history and radiological information were rated above average (p ≤ 0.001). Contributions of histopathologists and CNS were rated below average (p ≤ 0.001), and others average. The interobserver agreement was high (ICC = 0.70+) for presentation of radiological information, and contribution of oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and CNSs; adequate for case history presentation (ICC = 0.68) and contribution of surgeons (ICC = 0.69); moderate for chairperson (ICC = 0.52); and poor for pathological information (ICC = 0.31). Average differences were found only for case-history presentation (p ≤ 0.001). ICCs improved significantly in assessment of case history, and Oncologists, and ICCs were consistently high for CNS, Radiologists, and Histopathologists. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific observational metrics can be reliably used by medical and non-medical observers in cancer MDTs. Such robust assessment tools provide part of a toolkit for team evaluation and enhancement.
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: 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: Rachel D A Havyer; Majken T Wingo; Nneka I Comfere; Darlene R Nelson; Andrew J Halvorsen; Furman S McDonald; Darcy A Reed Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Katia Noyes; John R T Monson; Irfan Rizvi; Ann Savastano; James S A Green; Nick Sevdalis Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.840