Formalising multidisciplinary peer review: developing a haematological malignancy-specific electronic proforma and standard operating procedure to facilitate procedural efficiency and evidence-based clinical practice

Clinical impact of data feedback at lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A mixed methods study

AIM

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can facilitate optimal lung cancer care, yet details of structured data collection and feedback remain sparse. This study aimed to investigate data collection and the impact of feedback to lung cancer MDTs.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study using pre and post-test surveys, semistructured interviews, and observation to evaluate data collection and response to modeled data feedback in three Australian lung cancer MDTs at different locations and development stage (site A: outer metropolitan, established; site B, outer metropolitan, new; and site C, inner metropolitan, established).

RESULTS

MDT attendees (range 13-25) discussed 5-8 cases per meeting. All sites collected data prospectively (80% prepopulated) into local oncology medical information systems. The pretest survey had 17 respondents in total (88% clinicians). At sites A and C, 100% of respondents noted regular data audits, occasional at site B. Regular audit data included number of cases, stage, final diagnosis, and time to diagnosis and treatment. The post-test survey had 25 respondents in total, all clinicians. The majority (88-96%) of respondents found modeled data easy to interpret, relevant to clinical practice and the MDT, and welcomed future regular data presentations (as rated on a 5-point Likert scale mean weighted average 4.5 where > 4 demonstrates agreement). Semistructured interviews identified five major themes for MDTs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MDT.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Key characteristics of MDT data were identified and may assist with future team research and development.

A framework for analysing learning health systems: Are we removing the most impactful barriers?

INTRODUCTION

Learning health systems (LHS) are one of the major computing advances in health care. However, no prior research has systematically analysed barriers and facilitators for LHS. This paper presents an investigation into the barriers, benefits, and facilitating factors for LHS in order to create a basis for their successful implementation and adoption.

METHODS

First, the ITPOSMO-BBF framework was developed based on the established ITPOSMO (information, technology, processes, objectives, staffing, management, and other factors) framework, extending it for analysing barriers, benefits, and facilitators. Second, the new framework was applied to LHS.

RESULTS

We found that LHS shares similar barriers and facilitators with electronic health records (EHR); in particular, most facilitator effort in implementing EHR and LHS goes towards barriers categorised as human factors, even though they were seen to carry fewer benefits. Barriers whose resolution would bring significant benefits in safety, quality, and health outcomes remain.LHS envisage constant generation of new clinical knowledge and practice based on the central role of collections of EHR. Once LHS are constructed and operational, they trigger new data streams into the EHR. So LHS and EHR have a symbiotic relationship. The implementation and adoption of EHRs have proved and continues to prove challenging, and there are many lessons for LHS arising from these challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful adoption of LHS should take account of the framework proposed in this paper, especially with respect to its focus on removing barriers that have the most impact.

Physician Integrity, Templates, and the 'F' Word

The medical profession is increasingly dependent upon electronic health records. Along with documented benefits, a number of potential ethical abuses have been outlined. Herein, we describe an ethical abuse that has received almost no attention, namely falsified medical records. We present three cases in which the medical record cited facts from history that were not elicited and findings from physical examination that was not performed. This is fraud. Prepopulated templates were almost certainly responsible. If a template is used, it must begin free of results-a skeleton onto which flesh is placed. If coders and third-party payers insist on having information than health care providers think relevant, then we, as a profession should "push back," but a template that has been prepopulated puts fraudulent data into electronic health record, seriously damaging physician integrity.

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.

Determinants of variable resource use for multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have developed into standard of care to provide expert opinion and to grant evidence-based recommendations on diagnostics and treatment of cancer. Though MDTMs are associated with a range of benefits, a growing number of cases, complex case discussion and an increasing number of participants raise questions on cost versus benefit. We aimed to determine cost of MDTMs and to define determinants hereof based on observations in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected through observations of 50 MDTMs and from questionnaire data from 206 health professionals that participated in these meetings.

RESULTS

The MDTMs lasted mean 0.88 h and managed mean 12.6 cases with mean 4.2 min per case. Participants were mean 8.2 physicians and 2.9 nurses/other health professionals. Besides the number of cases discussed, meeting duration was also influenced by cancer diagnosis, hospital type and use of video facilities. When preparatory work, participation and post-MDTM work were considered, physicians spent mean 4.1 h per meeting. The cost per case discussion was mean 212 (range 91-595) EUR and the cost per MDTM was mean 2675 (range 1439-4070) EUR.

CONCLUSIONS

We identify considerable variability in resource use for MDTMs in cancer care and demonstrate that 84% of the total cost is derived from physician time. The variability demonstrated underscores the need for regular and structured evaluations to ensure cost effective MDTM services.