Stephen H Taplin1, Sallie Weaver2, Eduardo Salas2, Veronica Chollette2, Heather M Edwards2, Suanna S Bruinooge2, Michael P Kosty2. 1. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore; Leidos Biomedical Research, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD; University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; and Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, Ca taplins@mail.nih.gov. 2. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore; Leidos Biomedical Research, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD; University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; and Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, Ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.
PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.
Authors: Marije Bosch; Marjan J Faber; Juliette Cruijsberg; Gerlienke E Voerman; Sheila Leatherman; Richard P T M Grol; Marlies Hulscher; Michel Wensing Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Wenya Yang; James H Williams; Paul F Hogan; Suanna S Bruinooge; Gladys I Rodriguez; Michael P Kosty; Dean F Bajorin; Amy Hanley; Ashley Muchow; Naya McMillan; Michael Goldstein Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Benjamin W Lamb; Katrina F Brown; Kamal Nagpal; Charles Vincent; James S A Green; Nick Sevdalis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-03-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Sallie Weaver; Veronica Chollette; Lawrence B Marks; Andrew Jacobs; Gordon Schiff; Carrie T Stricker; Suanna S Bruinooge; Eduardo Salas Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: David E Gerber; Torsten Reimer; Erin L Williams; Mary Gill; Laurin Loudat Priddy; Deidi Bergestuen; Joan H Schiller; Haskell Kirkpatrick; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Ruth C Carlos; Melissa A Simon; Debra L Madden; William J Gradishar; Al B Benson; Bruce D Rapkin; Elisa S Weiss; Ilana F Gareen; Lynne I Wagner; Seema A Khan; Mikele M Bunce; Art Small; Christine B Weldon Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sarah F D'Ambruoso; Anne Coscarelli; Sara Hurvitz; Neil Wenger; David Coniglio; Dusty Donaldson; Christopher Pietras; Anne M Walling Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
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