Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2021-01, Vol.103 (1), p.10-17
Hauptverfasser: Warner, R, Hoinville, L, Pottle, E, Taylor, C, Green, Jsa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 17
container_issue 1
container_start_page 10
container_title Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
container_volume 103
creator Warner, R
Hoinville, L
Pottle, E
Taylor, C
Green, Jsa
description Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases. We analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings. Most breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%). To facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.
doi_str_mv 10.1308/rcsann.2020.0212
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7705157</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2446990254</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-58aa8c99c519592a97a3653a95f84671b4f8481a07cbd3276c8a3a98b1b408b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1rVDEUxYNU7Fjdu5JAN27eePM1SVwIZfALC4LYdcjLy8ykvJe8JnlK_3szTC3q6kLO7x5y7kHoFYE1YaDeZldsjGsKFNZACX2CVoRL1UlQ7AytAJjolOLsHD0v5RaAaKnIM3TOqFaEcblCd9_9LrmlhLjHzkbnM56WsYYhFBfmMUSb73H1dsKT97VRBYeI68HjmxiqH_DX9jak6R12aZptPvosOY1pf49_hXrAqbEZl9m7YJuvLy_Q050di3_5MC_QzccPP7afu-tvn75sr647xymvnVDWKqe1E0QLTa2Wlm0Es1rsFN9I0vM2FbEgXT8wKjdO2aaqvimgesYu0PuT77z0kx-cjzXb0cw5TC2TSTaYf5UYDmaffhopQRAhm8GbB4Oc7hZfqpnaUfw42ujTUgzlfKM1UMEbevkfepuWHFu8RmmtlQANjYIT5XIqJfvd42cImGOf5tSnOfZpjn22ldd_h3hc-FMg-w2awp9v</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2499985090</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central(OpenAccess)</source><source>Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ)</source><creator>Warner, R ; Hoinville, L ; Pottle, E ; Taylor, C ; Green, Jsa</creator><creatorcontrib>Warner, R ; Hoinville, L ; Pottle, E ; Taylor, C ; Green, Jsa</creatorcontrib><description>Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases. We analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings. Most breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%). To facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0035-8843</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-7083</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2020.0212</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32981347</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Auditing ; Cancer ; Decision making ; Female ; Group Processes ; Humans ; Interprofessional Relations ; Likert scale ; Male ; Medical Oncology - organization & administration ; Medical Oncology - statistics & numerical data ; Medical personnel ; Medical research ; Meetings ; Nurses ; Patient Care Planning - organization & administration ; Patient Care Planning - statistics & numerical data ; Patient Care Team - organization & administration ; Patient Care Team - statistics & numerical data ; Patient Safety ; Patients ; Physicians - statistics & numerical data ; Polls & surveys ; Professionals ; Quality Improvement ; Review ; Surgeons ; Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data ; United Kingdom ; Urogenital Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Urogenital Neoplasms - therapy ; Urological cancer ; Urology ; Urology - organization & administration ; Urology - statistics & numerical data]]></subject><ispartof>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021-01, Vol.103 (1), p.10-17</ispartof><rights>Copyright Royal College of Surgeons of England Jan 2021</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021, All rights reserved by the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-58aa8c99c519592a97a3653a95f84671b4f8481a07cbd3276c8a3a98b1b408b33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-58aa8c99c519592a97a3653a95f84671b4f8481a07cbd3276c8a3a98b1b408b33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7705157/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7705157/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32981347$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Warner, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoinville, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pottle, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, Jsa</creatorcontrib><title>Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties</title><title>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</title><addtitle>Ann R Coll Surg Engl</addtitle><description>Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases. We analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings. Most breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%). To facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.</description><subject>Auditing</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Group Processes</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interprofessional Relations</subject><subject>Likert scale</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Oncology - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Medical Oncology - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Meetings</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Care Team - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Patient Care Team - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Safety</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Urogenital Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Urogenital Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Urological cancer</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Urology - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Urology - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><issn>0035-8843</issn><issn>1478-7083</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1rVDEUxYNU7Fjdu5JAN27eePM1SVwIZfALC4LYdcjLy8ykvJe8JnlK_3szTC3q6kLO7x5y7kHoFYE1YaDeZldsjGsKFNZACX2CVoRL1UlQ7AytAJjolOLsHD0v5RaAaKnIM3TOqFaEcblCd9_9LrmlhLjHzkbnM56WsYYhFBfmMUSb73H1dsKT97VRBYeI68HjmxiqH_DX9jak6R12aZptPvosOY1pf49_hXrAqbEZl9m7YJuvLy_Q050di3_5MC_QzccPP7afu-tvn75sr647xymvnVDWKqe1E0QLTa2Wlm0Es1rsFN9I0vM2FbEgXT8wKjdO2aaqvimgesYu0PuT77z0kx-cjzXb0cw5TC2TSTaYf5UYDmaffhopQRAhm8GbB4Oc7hZfqpnaUfw42ujTUgzlfKM1UMEbevkfepuWHFu8RmmtlQANjYIT5XIqJfvd42cImGOf5tSnOfZpjn22ldd_h3hc-FMg-w2awp9v</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Warner, R</creator><creator>Hoinville, L</creator><creator>Pottle, E</creator><creator>Taylor, C</creator><creator>Green, Jsa</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>Royal College of Surgeons</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>EHMNL</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties</title><author>Warner, R ; Hoinville, L ; Pottle, E ; Taylor, C ; Green, Jsa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-58aa8c99c519592a97a3653a95f84671b4f8481a07cbd3276c8a3a98b1b408b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Auditing</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Group Processes</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interprofessional Relations</topic><topic>Likert scale</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Oncology - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Medical Oncology - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Meetings</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Care Team - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Patient Care Team - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Safety</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Urogenital Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Urogenital Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Urological cancer</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Urology - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Urology - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Warner, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoinville, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pottle, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, Jsa</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>UK &amp; Ireland Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Warner, R</au><au>Hoinville, L</au><au>Pottle, E</au><au>Taylor, C</au><au>Green, Jsa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</jtitle><addtitle>Ann R Coll Surg Engl</addtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>10</spage><epage>17</epage><pages>10-17</pages><issn>0035-8843</issn><eissn>1478-7083</eissn><abstract>Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases. We analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings. Most breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%). To facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>32981347</pmid><doi>10.1308/rcsann.2020.0212</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0035-8843
ispartof Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021-01, Vol.103 (1), p.10-17
issn 0035-8843
1478-7083
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7705157
source MEDLINE; PubMed Central(OpenAccess); Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ)
subjects Auditing
Cancer
Decision making
Female
Group Processes
Humans
Interprofessional Relations
Likert scale
Male
Medical Oncology - organization & administration
Medical Oncology - statistics & numerical data
Medical personnel
Medical research
Meetings
Nurses
Patient Care Planning - organization & administration
Patient Care Planning - statistics & numerical data
Patient Care Team - organization & administration
Patient Care Team - statistics & numerical data
Patient Safety
Patients
Physicians - statistics & numerical data
Polls & surveys
Professionals
Quality Improvement
Review
Surgeons
Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data
United Kingdom
Urogenital Neoplasms - diagnosis
Urogenital Neoplasms - therapy
Urological cancer
Urology
Urology - organization & administration
Urology - statistics & numerical data
title Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T05%3A50%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Refocusing%20cancer%20multidisciplinary%20team%20meetings%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom:%20comparing%20urology%20with%20other%20specialties&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20Royal%20College%20of%20Surgeons%20of%20England&rft.au=Warner,%20R&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=10&rft.epage=17&rft.pages=10-17&rft.issn=0035-8843&rft.eissn=1478-7083&rft_id=info:doi/10.1308/rcsann.2020.0212&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2446990254%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2499985090&rft_id=info:pmid/32981347&rfr_iscdi=true