Using service guidance to shape the delivery of cancer services: experience in the UK

GUIDE Communication Framework: Developing Skills to Improve Nurse-Patient Interactions

GUIDE is a communication framework that helps nurses to empower patients through guidance and support. The five letters in GUIDE stand for gaining insight into the goals of treatment and care, understanding the gaps in the patient's knowledge, informing and educating, directing to additional support, and empowering patients. With the GUIDE communication framework, nurses are supported in being active members of the interprofessional team and participating in shared decision-making. The Ask-Tell-Ask model also allows nurses to discover patients' knowledge gaps and provide efficient education.

Towards Quality, Comprehensiveness and Excellence. The Accreditation Project of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI)

There are important gaps in the health status of citizens across Europe, as measured by life expectancy, mortality or morbidity data (Report for the European Commission on the health status of the European Union, 2003). Among the main determinants of the major causes of mortality and morbidity, stated in this report, stands recurrently access to quality healthcare. There is a fundamental need to define quality indicators and set minimal levels of performance quality criteria for healthcare. There is a need to integrate research into healthcare and to provide patients with equity of access to such high quality care. Oncology is a speciality particularly suited to experimenting a first application of accreditation at European level. The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes is a growing network of cancer Centres in Europe. The focus of the OECI is to work with professionals and organisations with regard to prevention, care, research, development, patient's role and education. In order to fulfil its mission, the OECI initiated in 2002 an accreditation project with three objectives: • to develop a comprehensive accreditation system for oncology care, taking into account prevention, care, research, education and networking. • to set an updated database of cancer centres in Europe, with exhaustive information on their resources and activities (in care, research, education and management) • to develop a global labelling tool dedicated to comprehensive cancer centres in Europe, designating the various types of cancer structures, and the comprehensive cancer centres of reference and Excellence.

An accreditation tool has been established, defining standards and criteria for prevention, care, research, education and follow-up activities. A quantitative database of cancer centres is integrated in the tool, with a questionnaire, that provides an overall view of the oncological landscape in OECI cancer centres in Europe. Data on infrastructures, resources and activities have been collected. This OECI accreditation tool will be launched in autumn 2008 for all cancer centres in Europe. It serves as a basis for the development of the labelling tool for cancer structures in Europe, with a focus on Comprehensiveness and Excellence labels. Quality assessment and improvement is a critical need in Europe and is addressed by the OECI for cancer care in Europe. Accreditation is a well accepted process and is feasible. Standards and criteria as well as an accreditation tool have been developed. The OECI questionnaire gives an accurate vision of cancer institutions throughout Europe, helping assessing the needs and providing standards. The accreditation project is a long-term complete and voluntary process with external and internal added value, an active process of sharing information and experience that should help the whole cancer community reach comprehensiveness and excellence.

Effects of multidisciplinary team on emergency care for colorectal cancer patients: A nationwide-matched cohort study

The literature describing the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team (MDT) for the care of colorectal cancer remains unclear. We investigated the effects of MDT care on the quality of colorectal cancer treatment, and the emergency department visit number was used as an indicator. In total, 45,418 patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (2005-2009) were included. Propensity score matching with a ratio of 1:3 was adopted to reduce differences in characteristics between MDT care participants and non-MDT care participants. After matching, 3039 participation MDT care groups and 9117 nonparticipation groups were included and analyzed with χ and t tests, determine the distribution was similar. Without the control of variables, the percentage difference between participation and nonparticipation MDT care groups in utilization of emergency care was 0.03% (P > .05). The logistic regression model involving controlled variables demonstrated that odds ratio (OR) by probability of emergency care used for participation MDT care groups within a year of cancer diagnosis was less than that for nonparticipation (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-0.96). Large amount data were used and confirmed significant benefits of MDT in colorectal cancer care.

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background

The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy.

Methods

Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3).

Results

Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care.

Conclusion

Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice.

Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?

Cancer care can be complex, and given the wide range and numbers of health-care professionals involved, an enormous potential for poor coordination and miscommunication exists. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should improve coordination, communication, and decision making between health-care team members and patients, and hopefully produce more positive outcomes. This review describes the many practical barriers to the successful implementation of MDT working, and shows that despite an increase in the delivery of cancer services via this method, research showing the effectiveness of MDT working is scarce.

Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams

Management decisions for patients with cancer are frequently taken within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). There is little known, however, about decision-making at team meetings and whether MDT decisions are all implemented. This study evaluated team decision-making in upper gastrointestinal cancer. Consecutive MDT treatment decisions were recorded for patients with oesophageal, gastric, pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumours. Implementation of MDT decisions was investigated by examining hospital records. Where decisions were implemented it was recorded as concordant and discordant if the decision changed. Reasons for changes in MDT decisions were identified. 273 decisions were studied and 41 (15.1%) were discordant (not implemented), (95% confidence interval 11.1-20.0%). Looking at the reasons for discordance, 18 (43.9%) were due to co-morbid health issues, 14 (34.2%) related to patient choice and 8 (19.5%) decisions changed when more clinical information was available. For one discordant decision, the reason was not apparent. Discordant decisions were more frequent for patients with pancreatic or gastric carcinoma as compared to oesophageal cancer (P = 0.001). Results show that monitoring concordance between MDT decisions and final treatment implementation is useful to inform team decision-making. For upper gastrointestinal cancer, MDTs require more information about co morbid disease and patient choice to truly optimize the implementation of multi-disciplinary expertise.