Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach

BMC Cancer

Cath Taylor²  Louise Atkins⁴  Alison Richardson³  Ruth Tarrant⁵  Amanda-Jane Ramirez¹ 

[1] Promoting Early Presentation Group, King’s College London, St Thomas’ Hospital, SE1 7EH, London, England

[2] Florence Nightingale School of Nursing & Midwifery, King’s College London, SE1 8WA, London, England

[3] Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton and Southampton University Hospital Trusts, SO16 6YD, Southampton, England

[4] Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, University College London, WC1E 7HB, London, England

[5] Department of Clinical Oncology, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, SO16 6YD, Southampton, England

关键词: Health resources;    Leadership;    Decision-making;    Quality Indicators Health Care;    Observation;    Interprofessional relations;    Multidisciplinary Communication;    Cancer;   

Others  :  1080405
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-12-202

 received in 2011-10-27, accepted in 2012-05-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are established in many countries but little is known about how well they function. A core activity is regular MDT meetings (MDMs) where treatment recommendations are agreed. A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted to develop and test quality criteria for observational assessment of MDM performance calibrated against consensus from over 2000 MDT members about the “characteristics of an effective MDT”.

Methods

Eighteen of the 86 ‘Characteristics of Effective MDTs’ were considered relevant and feasible to observe. They collated to 15 aspects of MDT working covering four domains: the team (e.g. attendance, chairing, teamworking); infrastructure for meetings (venue, equipment); meeting organisation and logistics; and patient-centred clinical decision-making (patient-centredness, clarity of recommendations). Criteria for rating each characteristic from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’ were derived from literature review, observing MDMs and expert input. Criteria were applied to 10 bowel cancer MDTs to assess acceptability and measure variation between and within teams. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing three observers.

Results

Observational assessment was acceptable to teams and feasible to implement. Total scores from 29 to 50 (out of 58) highlighted wide diversity in quality between teams. Eight teams were rated either ‘very good/good’ or ‘very poor/poor’ for at least three domains demonstrating some internal consistency. ‘Very good’ ratings were most likely for attendance and administrative preparation, and least likely for patient-centredness of decision-making and prioritisation of complex cases. All except two characteristics had intra-class correlations of ≥0.50.

Conclusions

This observational tool (MDT-OARS) may contribute to the assessment of MDT performance. Further testing to confirm validity and reliability is required.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Taylor et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, Griffiths C, Trevatt P, Richards MA, Ramirez AJ: Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: where are we now? British Medical Journal BMJ 2010, 340:c951.
• [2]Lamb B, Brown K, Nagpal K, Vincent C, Green JSA, Sevdalis N: Team decision making by cancer care multidisciplinary teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011, 18(8):2116-2125.
• [3]Department of Health: The Manual for Cancer Services. Department of Health, London; 2004.
• [4]National Cancer Action Team: National Cancer Peer Review Programme 2004–2007. National Report: An Overview of the Findings from the Second National Round of Peer Reviews of Cancer Services in England. National Cancer Action Team, London; 2008.
• [5]Davies AR, Deans DA, Penman I, Plevris JN, Fletcher J, Wall L, Phillips H, Gilmour H, Patel D, de Beaux A, Paterson-Brown S: The multidisciplinary team meeting improves staging accuracy and treatment selection for gastro-esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2006, 19(6):496-503.
• [6]Coory M, Gkolia P, Yang I, Bowman R, Fong K: Systematic review of multidisciplinary teams in the management of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008, 60:14-21.
• [7]Burton S, Brown G, Daniels IR, Norman AR, Mason B, Cunningham D: MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins? Br J Cancer 2006, 94(3):351-357.
• [8]Leo F, Venissac N, Poudenx M, Otto J: Mourox Jand the Groupe d'Oncologie Thoracique Azureen (GOThA): Multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: how to test its efficacy? J Thorac Oncol 2007, 2(1):69-72.
• [9]Stalfors J, Lundberg C, Westin T: Quality assessment of a multidisciplinary tumour meeting for patients with head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 2007, 127(1):82-87.
• [10]Blazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, Nicklin J, English R, Donovan JL: Analysis of clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol 2006, 17(3):457-460.
• [11]Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Arora S, Pinto A, Vincent C, Green JS: Teamwork and team decision-making at multidisciplinary cancer conferences: barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for improvement. World J Surg 2011, 35(9):1970-1976.
• [12]Lanceley AS, Savage J, Menon U, Jacobs I: Influences on multidisciplinary team decision-making. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008, 18(2):215-222.
• [13]Kidger J, Murdoch J, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM: Clinical decision-making in a multidisciplinary gynaecological cancer team: a qualitative study. BJOG 2009, 116(4):511-517.
• [14]Carthey: The role of structured observational research in healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12(Suppl II):ii13-ii16.
• [15]Bower P, Campbell S, Bojke C, Sibbald B: Team structure, team climate and the quality of care in primary care: an observational study. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12:273-279.
• [16]Undre S, Sevdalis N, Vincent C: Observing and assessing surgical teams: The Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery©(OTAS)©. In Safer surgery: analysing behaviour in the operating theatre. Ashgate Edited by Flin R, Mitchell L. 2009.
• [17]Healey A, Undre S, Vincent C: Developing observational measures of performance in surgical teams. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13(Suppl 1):i33-i40.
• [18]Taylor C, Ramirez AJ: Multidisciplinary team members' views about MDT working: results from a survey commissioned by the National Cancer Action Team. National Cancer Action Team, ; 2009. Available at: www.ncin.org.uk/mdt
• [19]The National Cancer Action Team: The Characteristics of an effective multidisciplinary team (MDT). February 2010. Available at: www.ncin.org.uk/mdt webcite
• [20]Taylor C, Sippitt J, Collins G, McManus C, Richardson A, Dawson J, Richards M, Ramirez A: A pre-post test evaluation of the impact of the PELICAN MDT-TME Development Programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:187. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]National Cancer Action Team: Holistic Needs Assessment for people with cancer: a practical guide for healthcare professionals. 2011. Available at: http://www.ncat.nhs.uk/our-work/living-with-beyond-cancer/holistic-needs-assessment webcite
• [22]National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guidance on cancer services: improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. NICE, London; 2004.
• [23]Lamb BW, Wong HWL, Vincent C, Green JSA, Sevdalis N: Teamwork and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational tool. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20(10):849-856.