Exploring non-physician care professionals' roles in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study

Clinical Utility of Integrated Multidisciplinary Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Care: A Mixed Methods Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and assess the clinical utility of the integrated multidisciplinary patient-centered information (PCI) written by various healthcare professionals for promoting patient-centered care in the treatment and care of breast cancer patients.

Methods

This study employed a convergent mixed methods interventional design in which Control and Intervention were compared by integrating both quantitative and qualitative results obtained from questionnaires and verbatim transcripts. In three breast cancer cases, a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) using a conventional electronic health record (EHR) viewer was designated Control, and a MDTM using a conventional EHR viewer plus the integrated multidisciplinary PCI was designated Intervention. Questionnaires, which consisted of questions about efficiency and patient-centeredness employing a 5-point Likert scale, were analyzed statistically using Wilcoxon rank test and summary statistics. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis hybrid approach.

Results

Three surgical oncologists and three nurses (ward, outpatient chemotherapy, and palliative care) participated in the MDTMs for both Control and Intervention. The quantitative data suggested that there were statistically significant differences between Control and Intervention (p<0.05), with Intervention superior to Control from the viewpoints of efficiency and patient-centeredness. The qualitative data suggested that the MDTM for Intervention involved more PCI and promoted shared understanding from early in the meeting. Synthesis of both the quantitative and qualitative results suggested that use of the integrated multidisciplinary PCI in MDTMs may facilitate the utilization of PCI and lead to more efficient and patient-centered discussions and decision-making to promote patient-centered care.

Conclusion

Integrating the PCI obtained from medical records of various healthcare specialists already documented in the hospital information system could prove to be helpful for supporting MDTMs and routine clinical practice without placing an additional burden on busy healthcare professionals while also promoting the digital transformation of healthcare.

Multidisciplinary team meeting Chairs' attitudes and perceived facilitators, barriers and ideal improvements to meeting functionality: A qualitative study

AIM

Oncology care provision by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is widely acknowledged as best practice. Formal team meetings, led by chairpersons, coordinate decisions on diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and review. This study addresses a gap in meeting Chairs' perspectives on factors affecting functionality across the meeting cycle, from pre-meeting patient list triage to post-meeting dissemination of recommendations.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person with Chairs within two urban geographical regions in New South Wales, Australia as part of a larger project. Though the population of oncology MDT Chairs in Australia is small, the richness and depth of data from nine Chairs were considered to be valuable knowledge in support of extant literature on meeting functionality. An integrated deductive-inductive approach was applied to data analysis.

RESULTS

Perceived facilitators, barriers, and ideals relating to pre-meeting, in-meeting, and post-meeting functionality were identified across five pre-determined analytic categories: the team; meeting infrastructure; meeting organization and logistics; patient-centered clinical decision-making, and; team governance. Key barriers included inadequate information technology, limited support staff, and lack of dedicated time for Chair duties. Corresponding facilitators included robust Information Technology infrastructure and support, provision of clinically knowledgeable MDT meeting coordinators, and formal employment recognition of Chairs' responsibilities and skill sets.

CONCLUSION

Chairs across various tumor streams develop workarounds to overcome barriers and ensure quality meeting outcomes. With more robust support they could enhance value by sharing evidence, conducting audits, and engaging in research. The findings highlight the need for healthcare systems to support tumor stream clinical networks by allocating greater resources to prioritize multidisciplinary meetings and cancer care decision-making.

Communication and support of patients and caregivers in chronic cancer care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline

•ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline with key recommendations for communication and support of cancer patients and caregivers. •The guideline discusses training in communication of oncology clinicians and research on communication in cancer care. •Practical recommendations aim to support oncology clinicians in their communication with patients and caregivers. •Figures summarising the responsibilities of the clinician, the oncology team and the health care institution are provided.

Necessity and influencing factors for integrating oral health in cancer care for older people: a narrative review

PURPOSE

The number of older people with poor oral health diagnosed with cancer is increasing rapidly. However, integration of oral health in cancer care for older people to prevent or minimize oral health complications of cancer treatments is uncommon, except in head and neck oncology. The aim of this review is to describe the need, role of, and factors influencing the integration of oral health(care) into the treatment of older people with cancer.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for papers published in the last 10 years that focus on oral health in older people diagnosed with cancer, the impact of oral health on cancer therapy, and integrated oral health in cancer treatment.

RESULTS

From 523 related papers, 68 publications were included and summarized as follows: (1) oral complications associated with cancer therapies, (2) the need for oral healthcare in older people with cancer, (3) the role of integration of oral health in cancer care, and (4) influencing factors such as ageism, interprofessional education and collaborations, oral healthcare workforce, oral health literacy, and financial considerations.

CONCLUSION

Integration of oral healthcare is highly recommended for the overall well-being of older people with cancer to prevent, minimize, and manage complications in cancer treatment. However, oral healthcare has not been integrated in cancer care yet, except for head and neck cancers. This review identified a notable gap in the literature, highlighting the need for research on integration of oral healthcare in geriatric oncology.

Measuring Team Functioning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Cancer Care Team Members

Background

In a public health crisis such as COVID-19, cancer teams face significant challenges including acute work disruptions, rapid shifts in clinical practice, and burnout. Within this context, it is crucial to explore team functioning from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.

Objective

This quantitative pilot study aimed to 1) measure perceptions of multi-stakeholders on key indicators of team functioning (Team Effectiveness, TE, and Team Relational Coordination, TRC) during COVID-19 and its transition, and 2) document whether patient perceptions of TE/TRC are significantly associated with their cancer care experiences.

Methods

A descriptive design with repeated measures was used. Through convenience sampling, participants were recruited from two outpatient cancer clinics at a large university-affiliated hospital, in Montréal, Qc, Canada. Sixty-six participants (ie, 13 healthcare professionals, 40 patients, 6 informal caregivers, and 7 volunteers) completed e-measures at T1 (years 2021-2022) and n = 44 at T2 (year 2023).

Results

At T1, participants reported high perceptions of Team Effectiveness (scale 1 to 6) M = 4.47; SD = 0.7 (Mdn = 4.54; IQR: 4.06-5) and Relational Coordination (scale 1 to 5) M = 3.77; SD = 0.77 (Mdn = 3.81; IQR: 3.12-4.38) with no significant differences in perceptions across the four groups. At T2, no significant changes in TE/TRC perceptions were found. At both time points, patient perceptions of TE/TRC were significantly correlated with positive cancer care experiences (Spearman rank correlation rs ranging from 0.69 and 0.83; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study documenting perceptions of cancer team functioning amidst the pandemic as reported by multiple stakeholders. Significant relationships between patient perceptions of TE/TRC and their cancer care experiences underscore the importance of including patients' views in team functioning processes. Future work should rely on larger sample sizes to further explore key elements of optimal team functioning.

Integrated Electronic Health Record of Multidisciplinary Professionals Throughout the Cancer Care Pathway: A Pilot Study Exploring Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Patients

Purpose

The aim of this pilot study was to first aggregate and then integrate the medical records of various healthcare professionals involved with breast cancer patients to reveal if and how patient-centered information is documented in multidisciplinary cancer care.

Patients and Methods

We aggregated 20 types of medical records from various healthcare professionals such as physicians, nurses and allied healthcare professionals (AHPs) throughout three breast cancer patients' care pathways in a department of breast surgery at a university hospital. Purposeful sampling was used, and three cases were examined. The number of integrated type of records was 14, 14, 17 in case 1, 2 and 3, respectively. We manually annotated and analyzed them exploratively using a thematic analysis. The tags were produced using both a deductive template approach and a data-driven inductive approach. All records were then given tags. We defined patient-centered information related tags and biomedical information related tags and then analyzed for if and how patient-centered information was documented.

Results

The number of patient-centered information related tags accounted for 30%, 30% and 20% of the total in case 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In all cases, patient-centered information was distributed across various medical records. The Progress Note written by doctors provided much of the patient-centered information, while other records contained information not described elsewhere in the Progress Notes. The records of nurses and AHPs included more patient-centered information than the doctors' notes. Each piece of patient-centered information was documented in fragments providing from each of the healthcare professionals' viewpoints.

Conclusion

The documented information throughout the breast cancer care pathway in the cases examined was dominated by biomedical information. However, our findings suggest that integrating fragmented patient-centered information from various healthcare professionals' medical records produces holistic patient-centered information from multiple perspectives and thus may facilitate an enhanced multidisciplinary patient-centered care.

Multidisciplinary teams and social science: a patient perspective

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are common in colorectal cancer and have been deemed important when providing care. Yet they take place outside of the patient, often with little consideration of the patient's views, goals and desires. In this paper specific examples from a patient perspective are integrated with the social science literature to provide an overview of areas of disconnect between MDT recommendations and the individual patient. The reasons for these disconnects are explored, including how MDTs relate to dyadic patient-clinician relationships, weak incorporation of patient-oriented outcomes in MDTs, poor integration of nonmedical patient information and the patient perspective and the impact of team dynamics and cognitive decision biases. Consideration of these issues should facilitate higher-quality MDT recommendations that are also more acceptable to patients.

Multidisciplinary team meetings in Hematology: a national mixed-methods study

Multidisciplinary team meetings are a current international practice in cancer care, but to date, few data exist on the specificity of its practice in hematology.In this manuscript, we present the result of the first national study, realized with quantitative and qualitative methods in France, which brings new insights in order to improve the collegial decision-making process.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects, and a specific focus on hematological particularities is warranted to truly improve process.Background Understanding the Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) process in different medical specialties facilitates the identification of core factors supporting effective MDTM work. Our mixed-methods study explores the participants' perceptions of hematology MDTMs.Design Online questionnaires collected data concerning the decision-making process, benefits and inconveniences of MDTMs for both patients and professionals. Semi-directive phone interviews were conducted and analyzed, thereby supplying qualitative data.Results A total of 205 professionals responded to the questionnaire and 22 participated in the qualitative interviews. The data indicate the unique characteristics of hematology, including a specific definition of collegiality, the frequent solicitation of expert advice and the anticipation of treatment even prior to the occurrence of MDTMs. Additional information concerning patients' wishes and psychosocial conditions are also needed. Participants emphasize the subjective aspects and the impact of the climate of MDTMs on medical decisions.Conclusion Although MDTMs are recognized to be a valuable tool, organizational and relational issues may interfere with their efficiency.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects. A specific focus on hematological particularities might be warranted to truly improve the collegial decision-making process in the context of hematology.

Nurses and Physicians' Perceptions Regarding the Role of Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialists in an Exploratory Qualitative Study

The purpose of the study was to examine the attitudes of nursing and medical teams about the role of oncology clinical nurse specialists in the healthcare system in Israel, where, unlike many countries in the world, such a role has not yet been developed or professionally defined. We conducted 24 interviews with physicians and nurses between August and October 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis method. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used to report the study. Five main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) contribution to the healthcare system, (2) contribution to the patient, (3) drawing professional boundaries, (4) additional responsibilities and authority for oncology clinical nurse specialists, and (5) the field's readiness for a new position of oncology clinical nurse specialists. The findings provide evidence about the need to develop the role of clinical nurse specialists in the oncology field due to its potential benefits for nurses, physicians, patients, family members, and the healthcare system. At the same time, an in-depth exploration of the boundaries of the role and its implementation, in full cooperation with the oncologists and relevant professional unions, is needed to prevent unnecessary conflicts in the oncology field. Professional development training programs in nursing must create a platform for open dialogue between key stakeholders, nurses, and physicians, in order to help all involved parties, place the benefits to the patients above any personal or status considerations.

Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) represent an integral component of modern cancer care and have increasingly been implemented to ensure accurate and evidence-based treatment recommendations. During MDTMs, multiple and complex medical and patient-related information should be considered by a multi-professional team whose members contribute various perspectives. Registered nurses (RNs) are expected to share information on the patient perspective at MDTMs. However, research suggests that RNs' contributions to case discussions are limited and that patient perspective is generally underrepresented. Our aim was to explore RNs' views of the prerequisites for and barriers to the inclusion of the patient perspective in MDTMs in Swedish cancer care.

METHODS

Data were collected from four focus group interviews with 22 RNs who worked as contact nurses in Swedish cancer care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified two categories and five subcategories. The participants presented different views and expressed ambivalence about the patient perspective in MDTMs. Subcategories were related to medical versus holistic perspectives, the added value of patient perspective, and possibilities for patient contributions. The participants also discussed prerequisites for the patient perspective to be considered in MDTM decision-making process, with subcategories related to structures promoting attention to the patient perspective and determinants of RNs' contributions to case discussions in MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates various views related to the patient perspective in MDTMs and identifies a great need to clarify the RN's role. Our results indicate that if enhanced presentation of the patient perspective in MDTMs is desired, key information points and structures must be established to collect and present relevant patient-related information.

How do patients make decisions in the context of a multidisciplinary team: an ethnographic study of four head and neck cancer centres in the north of England

OBJECTIVES

To describe how patients are engaged with cancer decisions in the context of multidisciplinary team (MDT) and how MDT recommendations are operationalised in the context of a shared decision.

DESIGN

Ethnographic qualitative study.

SETTING

Four head and neck cancer centres in the north of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer; non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews, and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

METHODS

Ethnographic methods including non-participant observation of MDT meetings and clinic appointments, informal interviews, field notes and formal semistructured interviews with patients and MDT members.

RESULTS

MDT discussions often conclude with a firm recommendation for treatment. When delivered to a patient in clinic, this recommendation is often accepted by the patient, but this response may result from the disempowered position in which they find themselves. While patient behaviour may thus appear to endorse clinicians' views that a paternalistic approach is desired by patients (creating a 'cycle of paternalism'), the rigidity of the MDT treatment recommendation can act as a barrier to discussion of options and the exploration of patient values.

CONCLUSIONS

The current model of MDT decision-making does not support shared decision-making and may actively undermine it. A model should be developed whereby the individual patient perspective has more input into MDT discussions, and where decisions are made on potential treatment options rather than providing a single recommendation for discussion with the patient. Deeper consideration should be given to how the MDT incorporates the patient perspective and/or delivers its discussion of options to the patient. In order to achieve these objectives, a new model of MDT working is required.