Making Heart Team Discussions Work

How to enrich team research in healthcare by considering five theoretical perspectives

The aim of this paper is to inspire team research to apply diverse and unconventional perspectives to study team dynamics and performance in healthcare settings. To illustrate that using multiple perspectives can yield valuable insights, we examine a segment of a team interaction during a heart-surgery, using five distinct interdisciplinary perspectives known from small group research: the psychodynamic, functional, conflict-power-status, temporal, and social identity perspectives. We briefly describe each theoretical perspective, discuss its application to study healthcare teams, and present possible research questions for the segment at hand using the respective perspective. We also highlight the benefits and challenges associated with employing these diverse approaches and explore how they can be integrated to analyze team processes in health care. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses. We also point to further research avenues and highlight the benefits associated with employing these diverse approaches. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses.

Zoom and its Discontents: Group Decision Making in Pediatric Cardiology in the Time of COVID (and Beyond) : Aurthors

The emergence of Covid-19 has led to change within hospital-based healthcare. An example, has been to reconfigure clinical decision making meetings from traditional in-person (Face-to-face, FtF) to online video-conferencing (VC) format inorder to decrease contagion risk. Despite its widespread uptake, there is minimal empirical data evaluating this format. This narrative review considers the implications on medical decision-making when clinicians communicate remotely via Microsoft Teams. The discussion is informed by the psychological literature and by commentary obtained from a survey of paediatric cardiac clinicians who participated in clinical meetings when video-conferencing was first introduced. Whist video-conferencing can optimize clinician presence, this is potentially offset by compromises in current imaging quality, the group discussion, information sharing and decision quality. Implementing a shift from face-to-face to VC within the group decision-making process requires an appreciation of the changed environment, appropriate adaptations and the implemention of new technology solutions. Meanwhile, healthcare should carefully consider the potential implications of clinical decision making using online video conferencing, be prepared to adapt and evaluate prior to a shift away from face-to-face formats.

Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review

There is emerging interest in understanding group decision making among a team of health professionals. Groupthink, a term coined by Irving Janis to depict premature consensus seeking in highly cohesive groups, is a theory that has been widely discussed in disciplines outside health care. However, it remains unclear how it has been conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professionals conducting patient care. This scoping review aimed to examine the conceptualization of groupthink in health care, empirical research conducted in healthcare teams, and recommendations to avoid groupthink. Eight databases were systematically searched for articles focusing on groupthink among health professional teams using a scoping review methodology. A total of 22 articles were included-most were commentaries or narrative reviews with only four empirical research studies. This review found that focus on groupthink and group decision making in medicine is relatively new and growing in interest. Few empirical studies on groupthink in health professional teams have been performed and there is conceptual disagreement on how to interpret groupthink in the context of clinical practice. Future research should develop a theoretical framework that applies groupthink theory to clinical decision making and medical education, validate the groupthink framework in clinical settings, develop measures of groupthink, evaluate interventions that mitigate groupthink in clinical practice, and examine how groupthink may be situated amidst other emerging social cognitive theories of collaborative clinical decision making.

Team functioning across different tumour types: Insights from a Swiss cancer center using qualitative and quantitative methods

Background

Multidisciplinary care is pivotal in cancer centres and the interaction of all cancer disease specialists in decision making processes is state‐of‐the‐art.

Aim

To describe differences of MDTMs by tumour type.

Methods

Twelve multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) with participation of different cancer disease specialists at a tertiary hospital were assessed by an exploratory sequential mixed method approach with interviews, observations and a survey to address the following five topics: organisational structure and supporting technology; leadership; teamwork; decision‐making, perceived value and motivation. Thirteen persons with different tumour specialities and levels of seniority were interviewed. The 12 MDTMs were observed twice by uninvolved persons and evaluated by the participating physicians with a survey.

Results

There were no systematic differences between MDTMs for different tumour types with the exception of the non‐disease specific type MDTM, which was the only one for which the organisational structure was not driven by an electronic tool. However, several factors could be identified that generally influenced the functioning of the MDTMs. In particular, the quality of decision‐making was highly dependent on the availability of case‐based information and the presence of relevant cancer disease specialists. Leadership and teamwork were rated as important and were comparable across the MDTM. Team participants' motivation and perceived value of MDTMs was high across all meetings.

Conclusion

MDTM at a single institution did not demonstrate disease specific characteristics. An effective MDTM, irrespective of the tumour type, can be successfully structured by technical means and a chairperson coordinating the interaction of cancer disease specialists to improve the decision‐making process.

Exploring Current Evidence on the Past, the Present, and the Future of the Heart Team: A Narrative Review

Introduction

Including healthcare professionals dealing with cardiovascular diseases, Heart Team is a concept/structure designed for selecting diagnostic strategies, facilitating therapeutic decisions, and improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients with complex heart pathologies, requiring input from different subspecialties and the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach. The aim of this narrative review is to search for and to summarize current evidence regarding Heart Team and to underline the future directions for the development of this concept.

Methods

We searched the electronic database of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies including Heart Team. Forty-eight studies were included, if reference was made to Heart Team structure and functionality.

Results

We depicted the structure and the timeline of Heart Team, along with actual evidence-based recommendations from European Guidelines. We underlined the importance of quality of knowledge-sharing and decision-making inside the Team, analyzing bad decisions which did not reflect members' true beliefs due to "uniformity pressure, closed mindedness, and illusion of invulnerability." The observation that Guidelines' indications regarding Heart Team carry a level C indication underlines the very future of this Team: randomized controlled trials proving solid benefits in an evidence-based world.

Conclusions

Envisioned as a tool for optimizing the management of various complex cardiovascular pathologies, Heart Team should simplify and facilitate the activity in the cardiovascular ward. Finally, these facts should be translated into better cardiovascular outcomes and a lower psychological distress among Team participants. Despite all future changes, there must always be a constant part: the patient should remain at the very center of the Team.

Impact of Hierarchy on Multidisciplinary Heart-Team Recommendations in Patients with Isolated Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background: The Heart Team (HT) discussion has been incorporated in the current guidelines for myocardial revascularization in order to optimize treatment decisions for patients with multivessel coronary disease (MVD). There are no data in the literature, whether hierarchical issues do have an impact on HT decisions. We aimed to analyze the therapeutic recommendations of the multidisciplinary "Heart Team" (HT) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if: (a) The head of cardiovascular surgery (HOS) and the head of cardiology (HOC) were present during the HT meeting, (b) both directors were absent, (c) only HOS or HOC was present. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all HT discussions between 2012 and 2015 in patients with isolated MVD (without any other cardiac problems requiring surgery). Results: During the study period, we analyzed 209 HT discussions in patients with isolated MVD. If neither HOS nor HOC was present at the HT discussion, the therapeutic recommendation was in 69% CABG and 31% PCI. If HOS and HOC were present in 77% CABG and 23% PCI was recommended (p = 0.34). If only HOS was present therapeutic recommendation was in 83% CABG and 17% PCI, and if only HOC was present the recommendation was in 54% CABG and 46% PCI (p < 0.0001). This difference did not attenuate during the study period. Conclusions: The hierarchy of the participating physicians significantly impacts treatment recommendations of a multidisciplinary HT in patients with isolated MVD. This impact did not attenuate after several years of Heart Team interaction.

Laborious but Elaborate: The Benefits of Really Studying Team Dynamics

In this manuscript we discuss the consequences of methodological choices when studying team processes "in the wild." We chose teams in healthcare as the application because teamwork cannot only save lives but the processes constituting effective teamwork in healthcare are prototypical for teamwork as they range from decision-making (e.g., in multidisciplinary decision-making boards in cancer care) to leadership and coordination (e.g., in fast-paced, acute-care settings in trauma, surgery and anesthesia) to reflection and learning (e.g., in post-event clinical debriefings). We draw upon recently emphasized critique that much empirical team research has focused on describing team states rather than investigating how team processes dynamically unfurl over time and how these dynamics predict team outcomes. This focus on statics instead of dynamics limits the gain of applicable knowledge on team functioning in organizations. We first describe three examples from healthcare that reflect the importance, scope, and challenges of teamwork: multidisciplinary decision-making boards, fast-paced, acute care settings, and post-event clinical team debriefings. Second, we put the methodological approaches of how teamwork in these representative examples has mostly been studied centerstage (i.e., using mainly surveys, database reviews, and rating tools) and highlight how the resulting findings provide only limited insights into the actual team processes and the quality thereof, leaving little room for identifying and targeting success factors. Third, we discuss how methodical approaches that take dynamics into account (i.e., event- and time-based behavior observation and micro-level coding, social sensor-based measurement) would contribute to the science of teams by providing actionable knowledge about interaction processes of successful teamwork.