Delivering Coordinated Cancer Care by Building Transactive Memory in a Team of Teams

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

Risk Management Activities in a Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Results of a Prospective Analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to highlight sources of harm that could negatively affect the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) activities to reduce the level of risk of each factor.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was used by a board of multi-health care professionals of the lung cancer MDT to identify the main processes, subprocesses, and risk factors of the multidisciplinary pathway of patients with lung cancer. A semiquantitative matrix was built with a five-point scale for probability of harm (likelihood) and severity of harm (consequences) according to the international risk management standards (ISO 31000-2018). The risk level was calculated by multiplying likelihood × consequences. Mitigation strategies have been identified and applied by the MDT to reduce risks to acceptable levels.

RESULTS

Three main processes (outpatient specialist visit, MDT discussion, and MDT program implementation), eight related subprocesses, and 16 risk factors were identified. Four risk factors (25%) were related to outpatient specialist visit, seven (43.75%) to case discussion, and five (31.25%) to program implementation. Overall, two risk factors were assigned a low-risk level (12.5%), 11 a moderate-risk level (68.75%), one (6.25%) a high-risk level, and two (12.5%) a very high-risk level. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the new semiquantitative risk analysis showed a reduction in almost all hazardous situations: two risk factors (12.5%) were given a very low level, six (37.5%) a low level, seven (43.75%) a moderate level, and one (6.25%) a very high level.

CONCLUSION

An interdisciplinary risk assessment analysis is applicable to MDT activities by using an ad hoc risk matrix: if the hazard is identified and monitored, the risk could be reduced and managed in a short time.

IMPACT the Brain: A Team-Based Approach to Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer With CNS Metastases

PURPOSE

CNS metastases are associated with decreased survival and quality of life for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Team-based care can optimize outcomes. IMPACT the Brain is a care coordination program that aims to improve access to team-based care for patients with MBC and CNS metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with MBC and CNS metastases were eligible for enrollment in this care coordination program. A team of specialists supported a dedicated program coordinator who provided navigation, education, specialty referral, and clinical trial screening. A unique intake form developed for the program created personalized, coordinated, and expedited specialty referrals. Patient-reported outcomes and caregiver burden assessments were collected on a voluntary basis throughout enrollment. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were referred, and 53 were enrolled (88%). The median time to program enrollment was 1 day (range, 0-11) and to first visit was 5 days (range, 0-25). On the basis of the program intake form, 47 referrals were made across six specialties, most commonly physical medicine and rehabilitation (n = 10), radiation oncology (n = 10), and neuropsychology (n = 10). Nineteen patients (36%) consented to enroll in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

A tailored team-based care coordination program for patients with MBC and CNS metastases is feasible. Use of a unique intake screening form by a dedicated program coordinator resulted in faster time to first patient visit, enabled access to subspecialist care, and supported enrollment in clinical trials. Future research should focus on intervention development using PRO data collected in this care coordination program.

Multiteam Systems: An Integrated Review and Comparison of Different Forms

In this review, we examine the burgeoning body of research on multiteam systems (MTSs) since the introduction of the concept in 2001. MTSs refer to networks of interdependent teams that coordinate at some level to achieve proximal and distal goals. We summarize MTS findings around three core processes and states: within- and between-team coordination processes/structures, leadership structures/processes, and cognitive and affective/motivation emergent states. Furthermore, we explore how these processes and states vary according to MTS boundary status (internal or external), component team distance (geographic, functional, cultural, and discipline), and superordinate goal type (intellectual or physical). We identify several process and state similarities across levels of these attributes, as well as highlight some important differences. We conclude with a set of propositions and future directions prompted by our review, which can serve as a guide for future MTS research.

Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment

Background

Management of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment.

Methods

Through a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10–12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive “immersion/crystallization” analysis process.

Results

Nine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond.

Conclusions

With the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships.