BACKGROUND: Thoracic multidisciplinary meetings (TMDM) are a key component of lung cancer patient management. The optimal design, organisation and function of TMDM are uncertain, and different models may serve different purposes. In the Auckland/Northland region, there are two contemporaneous weekly TMDM using different formats; one is a co-located TMDM (C-TMDM), and the other is a video conference TMDM (V-TMDM) connecting different locations. AIMS: To determine whether the rates of referral for radiotherapy (RT) and concordance between recommendations for RT and actual treatment received differed between the two TMDM formats. METHOD: A retrospective review of demographical and clinical data for cases referred for RT from both TMDM between January-June 2009 and the actual RT delivered. RESULTS: Seventy-nine and 31 lung cancers were referred for RT from the co-located TMDM and the video conference TMDM respectively. While there were significant differences in demographics related to areas of domicile, there were no significant differences between the TMDM in (i) the proportion of cases referred for RT that received RT, (ii) the intent of treatment recommended by the TMDM and the intent of RT delivered, or (iii) transit times to commencement of RT between cases referred from the different TMDM. CONCLUSION: The similar results from the different formats of TMDM indicate that cases discussed with the use of e-health technologies are not disadvantaged with respect to recommended therapy nor in the appropriateness of decisions of the TMDM. Use of such technology may reduce the existing disparities in health outcomes between urban and rural patients.
BACKGROUND: Thoracic multidisciplinary meetings (TMDM) are a key component of lung cancerpatient management. The optimal design, organisation and function of TMDM are uncertain, and different models may serve different purposes. In the Auckland/Northland region, there are two contemporaneous weekly TMDM using different formats; one is a co-located TMDM (C-TMDM), and the other is a video conference TMDM (V-TMDM) connecting different locations. AIMS: To determine whether the rates of referral for radiotherapy (RT) and concordance between recommendations for RT and actual treatment received differed between the two TMDM formats. METHOD: A retrospective review of demographical and clinical data for cases referred for RT from both TMDM between January-June 2009 and the actual RT delivered. RESULTS: Seventy-nine and 31 lung cancers were referred for RT from the co-located TMDM and the video conference TMDM respectively. While there were significant differences in demographics related to areas of domicile, there were no significant differences between the TMDM in (i) the proportion of cases referred for RT that received RT, (ii) the intent of treatment recommended by the TMDM and the intent of RT delivered, or (iii) transit times to commencement of RT between cases referred from the different TMDM. CONCLUSION: The similar results from the different formats of TMDM indicate that cases discussed with the use of e-health technologies are not disadvantaged with respect to recommended therapy nor in the appropriateness of decisions of the TMDM. Use of such technology may reduce the existing disparities in health outcomes between urban and rural patients.
Authors: Anna Janssen; Melissa Brunner; Melanie Keep; Monique Hines; Srivalli Vilapakkam Nagarajan; Candice Kielly-Carroll; Sarah Dennis; Zoe McKeough; Tim Shaw Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lidia S van Huizen; Pieter Dijkstra; Gyorgy B Halmos; Johanna G M van den Hoek; Klaas T van der Laan; Oda B Wijers; Kees Ahaus; Jan G A M de Visscher; Jan Roodenburg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lidia S van Huizen; Pieter U Dijkstra; Sjoukje van der Werf; Kees Ahaus; Jan Ln Roodenburg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 2.692