Implementation of a virtual multicenter gastrointestinal tumor board to reduce cancer disparities in Argentina

How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants' perspectives and limitations: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Virtual multidisciplinary team meetings (VMDTM) provide a standard of care that is not limited by physical distance or social restrictions. And so, when the COVID-19 pandemic imposed irrefutable social restrictions and made in-person meetings impossible, many hospitals switched to the VMDTMs. Although the pandemic might have highlighted the ease of VMDTMs, these virtual meetings have existed over the past decade, albeit less in importance. Despite their recent importance, no review has previously assessed the feasibility of VMDTMs through the eyes of the participants, the barriers participants face, nor their comparison with the in-person format. We undertook this scoping review to map existing literature and assess the perspectives of VMDTM participants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception till July 1st, 2023 to select studies that evaluated the perspectives of participants of VMDTMs regarding the core components that make up a VMDMT. Four authors, independently, extracted data from all included studies. Two authors separated data into major themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

We identified six core, intrinsic aspects of a VMDTM that are essential to its structure: (1) organization, (2) case discussion and decision-making, (3) teamwork and communication, (4) training and education, (5) technology, and (6) patient-related aspect. VMDTMs have a high overall satisfaction rating amongst participants. The preference, however, is for a hybrid model of multidisciplinary teams. VMDTMs offer support to isolated physicians, help address complex cases, and offer information that may not be available elsewhere. The periodical nature of VMDTMs is appropriate for their consideration as CMEs. Adequate technology is paramount to the sustenance of the format.

CONCLUSION

VMDTMs are efficient and offer a multidisciplinary consensus without geographical limitations. Despite certain technical and social limitations, VMDTM participants are highly satisfied with the format, although the preference lies with a hybrid model.

Virtually the same? Examining the impact of the COVID-19 related shift to virtual lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the UK National Health Service: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of the shift to virtual lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in relation to the magnitude of information technology (IT) issues and distractions and MDT members'/managers' perceptions and experiences of this shift.

DESIGN

A mixed methods study comprising real-time observations of IT issues/distractions within virtual MDTM case discussions held between April and July 2021 and qualitative data from interviews/surveys.

SETTING

Eight hospital organisations in Southern England.

PARTICIPANTS

Team members (respiratory physicians, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, palliative care professionals, nurses and MDT coordinators) and managers (n=190) across 8 local MDTs.

RESULTS

MDTM observations (n=1664) highlighted significant variation between teams regarding IT functionality. IT issues and other distractions relating to the virtual MDTM format were observed 465 times affecting 20.6% of case discussions, most of which were audio issues (18.1%). Case discussions that had audio issues were, on average, 26 s longer (t(1652)=-2.77, p<0.01). A total of 73 MDT members and managers participated in the survey and 41 participated in interviews, with all 8 teams being represented. Increased flexibility, reduced travel time and easier real-time access to patient information were seen as the main advantages of virtual MDTMs. Views regarding the impact on relational aspects and communication differed. In line with observational findings, concerns were raised in relation to IT, including having inappropriate equipment, insufficient bandwidth (impairing image sharing and video communication) and an overarching theme that virtual meeting platforms provided were not fit for purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the potential benefits of virtual MDTMs, IT issues can waste valuable MDTM time. If hospital organisations plan to continue virtual MDTMs, a functioning infrastructure is required, necessitating appropriate resource and investment.