OBJECTIVES: To assess implementation rates of the consensus plans made at the uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) of an Australian tertiary centre, and analyse obstacles to implementation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients discussed at the uro-oncology MDM at our institution between 1 January and 30 June 2015. Rates of referral for MDM discussion after a new histological diagnosis of malignancy, categorised by tumour type, were assessed. Patient records were interrogated to confirm MDM plan implementation, with the outcomes examined being completion of MDM plan within 3 months and factors preventing implementation. RESULTS: During the enrolment period, from 291 uro-oncological procedures, 240 yielded malignant histology of which 160 (67%) were discussed at the MDM. Overall, 202 patients, including 32 females, were discussed at the uro-oncology MDM. MDM consensus plans were implemented in 184 (91.1%) patients. Reasons for deviation from the MDM plan included delay in care, patient deterioration or comorbidities, patient preference, consultant decision, loss to follow-up, and change in patient scenario due to additional new information. CONCLUSION: The MDM is increasingly important in the care of uro-oncology patients, with about two-thirds of new diagnoses currently captured. There appear to be few barriers to the implementation of consensus plans, with nearly all patients undergoing the recommended management.
OBJECTIVES: To assess implementation rates of the consensus plans made at the uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) of an Australian tertiary centre, and analyse obstacles to implementation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients discussed at the uro-oncology MDM at our institution between 1 January and 30 June 2015. Rates of referral for MDM discussion after a new histological diagnosis of malignancy, categorised by tumour type, were assessed. Patient records were interrogated to confirm MDM plan implementation, with the outcomes examined being completion of MDM plan within 3 months and factors preventing implementation. RESULTS: During the enrolment period, from 291 uro-oncological procedures, 240 yielded malignant histology of which 160 (67%) were discussed at the MDM. Overall, 202 patients, including 32 females, were discussed at the uro-oncology MDM. MDM consensus plans were implemented in 184 (91.1%) patients. Reasons for deviation from the MDM plan included delay in care, patient deterioration or comorbidities, patient preference, consultant decision, loss to follow-up, and change in patient scenario due to additional new information. CONCLUSION: The MDM is increasingly important in the care of uro-oncology patients, with about two-thirds of new diagnoses currently captured. There appear to be few barriers to the implementation of consensus plans, with nearly all patients undergoing the recommended management.