The proliferation of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): how can radiology departments continue to support them all?

What is the added value of specialist radiology review of multidisciplinary team meeting cases in a tertiary care center?

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an important component of the workload of radiologists. This study investigated how often subspecialized radiologists change patient management in MDTMs at a tertiary care institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over 2 years, six subspecialty radiologists documented their contributions to MDTMs at a tertiary care center. Both in-house and external imaging examinations were discussed at the MDTMs. All imaging examinations (whether primary or second opinion) were interpreted and reported by subspecialty radiologist prior to the MDTMs. The management change ratio (MCratio) of the radiologist was defined as the number of cases in which the radiologist's input in the MDTM changed patient management beyond the information that was already provided by the in-house (primary or second opinion) radiology report, as a proportion of the total number of cases whose imaging examinations were prepared for demonstration in the MDTM.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight MDTMs were included. The time required for preparing and attending all MDTMs (excluding imaging examinations that had not been reported yet) was 11,000 min, with a median of 172 min (IQR 113-200 min) per MDTM, and a median of 9 min (IQR 8-13 min) per patient. The radiologists' input changed patient management in 113 out of 1138 cases, corresponding to an MCratio of 8.4%. The median MCratio per MDTM was 6% (IQR 0-17%).

CONCLUSION

Radiologists' time investment in MDTMs is considerable relative to the small proportion of cases in which they influence patient management in the MDTM. The use of radiologists for MDTMs should therefore be improved.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The use of radiologists for MDTMs (multidisciplinary team meetings) should be improved, because their time investment in MDTMs is considerable relative to the small proportion of cases in which they influence patient management in the MDTM.

KEY POINTS

• Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an important component of the workload of radiologists. • In a tertiary care center in which all imaging examinations have already been interpreted and reported by subspecialized radiologists before the MDTM takes place, the median time investment of a radiologist for preparing and demonstrating one MDTM patient is 9 min. • In this setting, the radiologist changes patient management in only a minority of cases in the MDTM.

Diagnostic radiology and its future: what do clinicians need and think?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future.

METHODS

Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future.

RESULTS

The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0-10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes. 40.6%, 15.1%, 18.9%, and 9.5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report. Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.7%) expected a decrease. The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.2%). Two hundred clinicians (60.4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.3%) thought the opposite.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging. They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required. Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed.

KEY POINTS

• Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future. • Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves. • The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.

Palliative Care Nursing Case Management in Young Adults With Advanced Rare Cancer: Case Discussion of a Multidisciplinary Approach

Purpose/Objectives:

This case aims to identify the elements of care continuity that are lacking in young adult patients with advanced rare cancer, suggesting ways to enhance continuity of care through nurse case manager/management (NCM) interventions and describing their impact on the emotional burden of patients and their families.

Primary Practice Setting(s):

Comprehensive cancer center.

Findings/Conclusions:

The dyadic care alliance with the NCM can alleviate disease burden, fostering trust in the team and adherence to care advice, thus reducing the patient's distress. The NCM can be an efficient option to advocate for patient needs on the multidisciplinary team, addressing practical issues and the unmet needs of patients and their caregivers, and facilitating referrals to other professionals. The study also shows that caring for young adults with advanced rare cancers should include mindful evaluation of their significant others.

Implications for Case Management Practice:

[Assessment of the Internal Medicine Multidisciplinary Team meetings at the Grenoble University Hospital]

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings purpose is to optimize the disease management regarding state of science. While cancer MDT has proven its effectiveness, this is not yet the case with internal medicine MDT.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive monocentric retrospective study. Data were collected from 247 MDT meeting reports which took place at the Grenoble University Hospital over a 5 years period. We investigated the data related to patient, MDT features, and decision-making process and reporting. Discussions were classified as diagnostic and/or therapeutic.

RESULTS

Three specialties, among which at least internal medicine, attended to meetings. While 12% of cases were considered as "complex", a specialist opinion was required in 18% of diagnostic discussions. With regards to therapeutic discussions, 35% were supported by guidelines, 50% of therapeutic implementation involved innovating and expensive drugs, with off-label prescription in 75% of them. The decision-making process was described in 6% of the reports. Treatment recommendations were actually implemented in 72% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

MDT meetings in Internal medicine meets a real need of physicians, in the ultimate interest of the patient. A prospective analysis would be interesting for a better definition of the evaluation criteria of these MDT meetings, meeting the physicians' needs, in patient management best interest. Prospective analyses are needed to better define MDT meetings assessment criteria.

Improving the effectiveness of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: analysis of a national survey of MDT members' opinions about streamlining patient discussions

Background

Cancer is diagnosed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the UK and worldwide, these teams meet regularly in MDT meetings (MDMs) to discuss individual patient treatment options. Rising cancer incidence and increasing case complexity have increased pressure on MDMs. Streamlining discussions has been suggested as a way to enhance efficiency and to ensure high-quality discussion of complex cases.

Methods

Secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from a national survey of 1220 MDT members regarding their views about streamlining MDM discussions.

Results

The majority of participants agreed that streamlining discussions may be beneficial although variable interpretations of ‘streamlining’ were apparent. Agreement levels varied significantly by tumour type and occupational group. The main reason for opposing streamlining were concerns about the possible impact on the quality and safety of patient care. Participants suggested a range of alternative approaches for improving efficiency in MDMs in addition to the use of treatment protocols and pre-MDT meetings.

Conclusions

This work complements previous analyses in supporting the development of tumour-specific guidance for streamlining MDM discussions considering a range of approaches. The information provided about the variation in opinions between MDT for different tumour types will inform the development of these guidelines. The evidence for variation in opinions between those in different occupational groups and the reasons underlying these opinions will facilitate their implementation. The impact of any changes in MDM practices on the quality and safety of patient care requires evaluation.

Multidisciplinary team meeting for complex bone and joint infections diagnosis: The PHICTOS study

BACKGROUND

In France, the most severe bone and joint infections (BJI), called "complex" (CBJI), are assessed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM) in a reference center. However, the definition of CBJI, drawn up by the Health Ministry, is not consensual between physicians. The objective was to estimate the agreement for CBJI classification.

METHODS

Initially, five experts from one MTM classified twice, one-month apart, 24 cases as non-BJI, simple BJI or CBJI, using the complete medical record. Secondly, six MTMs classified the same cases using standardized information. Agreements were estimated using Fleiss and Cohen kappa (κ) coefficients.

RESULTS

Inter-expert agreement during one MTM was moderate (κ=0.49), and fair (κ=0.23) when the four non-BJIs were excluded. Intra-expert agreement was moderate (κ=0.50, range 0.27-0.90), not improved with experience. The overall inter-MTM agreement was moderate (κ=0.58), it was better between MTMs with professor (κ=0.65) than without (κ=0.51) and with longer median time per case (κ=0.60) than shorter (κ=0.47). When the four non-BJIs were excluded, the overall agreement decreased (κ=0.40).

CONCLUSION

The first step confirmed the heterogeneity of CBJI classification between experts. The seemingly better inter-MTM than inter-expert agreement could be an argument in favour of MTMs, which are moreover a privileged place to enhance expertise. Further studies are needed to assess these results as well as the quality of care and medico-economic outcomes after a MTM.

Clinicians' perceptions of the quality of outsourced radiology and actions taken around perceived imaging errors in practice

OBJECTIVES

Outsourcing of radiological reporting services has fundamentally altered communication between radiologists and clinicians in clinical decision making, which relies heavily on diagnostic imaging. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perspectives and experiences of interpretation of outsourced reports in clinical practice, if the author of imaging reports matters to clinicians, and actions taken to deal with perceived errors.

METHODS

A printed survey was distributed to a purposive sample of 50 of the 250 senior medical and surgical staff of a large National Health Service hospital in the UK who regularly engaged with the Radiology Department between May and October 2017, representing 20% of this hospital workforce. The survey consisted of ten questions examining clinicians' opinions on radiology reporting, with comment options to encourage respondents to give further detail. Participants were requested to return the survey to the study investigators.

RESULTS

The survey elicited a 100% response rate (n = 50). A constant comparative framework was used to guide analysis, revealing themes relevant to the ongoing inter-professional relationship between clinicians and radiologists. The disparity between in-house and externally sourced radiology reports and underlying issues of trust surrounding outsourced reports were the most significant themes identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found outsourcing of radiology reporting needs multi-disciplinary team availability regarding the interpretation and discussions around capacity for effective communication. It raises important issues around often under-acknowledged additional workloads imposed on in-house radiologists. There are financial and pragmatic clinical aspects in pathways of radiology practice which require further research and examination.

KEY POINTS

• Utilisation of outsourcing is increasing in practice in response to imaging demands. • Outsourcing increases departmental primary reporting capacity but may increase the workload of the local radiologist. • The development of strategies for outsourcing examinations may lessen demands on the in-house workforce.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and Radiologist workload, a prospective review in a tertiary care hospital

Objective

To quantify the increase in workload associated with multidisciplinary team meetings for radiologists in a tertiary care hospital over a period of 15 months.

Methods

Data was collected prospectively regarding number of multidisciplinary team meetings, number of clinical cases discussed, number of individual imaging studies reviewed, and preparation time of residents, senior registrar and consultants and the delivery time of meeting.

Results

Total 223 meetings were held over 15 months (April 2014 to June 2015) for 12 clinical specialty areas. There were 1120 clinical case discussions and a total of 2759 documented individual imaging studies reviewed. Resident's preparation time was 74.6 hours/month, senior registrar's preparation time was 47.93 hours/month, consultant's preparation time was 18.67 hours/month and the total duration time for meetings was 18 hours/month.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary team meetings now represent a significant workload of radiology and has reduced the time for other academic activities within the department.

Radiological input during paediatric multidisciplinary team meetings and its influence on clinical patient management

INTRODUCTION

There is little information about the role of the radiologist at multidisciplinary team meetings; in particular their influence on patient management. To evaluate the influence of radiologists on clinical patient management during multidisciplinary meetings.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected over a 5-week period from multidisciplinary team meetings across four paediatric clinical domains. Radiological input was recorded for each case discussion, including the type of influence and its potential effect on clinical patient management.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty paediatric cases were reviewed. Radiological advice was requested from the radiologist for 25.7% (N = 36) of cases. In 17.9% (N = 25) this advice was judged to have influenced clinical patient management. There were two cases where new imaging findings were discovered.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists influence clinical patient management during multidisciplinary team meetings primarily by providing differential diagnoses and guidance regarding future imaging, with respect to both the necessity and the modality. Occasionally, when imaging is reviewed at these meetings, new findings are discovered that impact on patient management.