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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2021-01, Vol.103 (1), p.10-17 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & administration</subject><subject>Medical Oncology - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Meetings</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning - organization & administration</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Care Team - organization & administration</subject><subject>Patient Care Team - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Safety</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & 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 & administration</subject><subject>Urology - statistics & 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 & administration</topic><topic>Medical Oncology - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Meetings</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning - organization & administration</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Care Team - organization & administration</topic><topic>Patient Care Team - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Safety</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & 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 & administration</topic><topic>Urology - statistics & 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 & 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 & Ireland Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & 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 |