Quality Improvement in Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams: An Investigation of Teamwork and Clinical Decision-Making and Cross-Validation of Assessments

Purpose Teamworking and clinical decision-making are important in multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). Our objective is to assess the quality of information presentation and MDT members’ contribution to decision-making via expert observation and self-report, aiming to cross-validate the two method...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of surgical oncology 2011-12, Vol.18 (13), p.3535-3543
Main Authors: Lamb, B. W., Sevdalis, N., Mostafid, H., Vincent, C., Green, J. S. A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Decision Making
Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
Humans
Interdisciplinary Studies
Medical Oncology - organization & administration
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neoplasms - therapy
Oncology
Patient Care Team - organization & administration
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - organization & administration
Quality Improvement
Quality of Health Care - standards
Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Teamworking and clinical decision-making are important in multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). Our objective is to assess the quality of information presentation and MDT members’ contribution to decision-making via expert observation and self-report, aiming to cross-validate the two methods and assess the insight of MDT members into their own team performance. Materials and Methods Behaviors were scored using (i) a validated observational tool employing Likert scales with objective anchors, and (ii) a 29-question online self-report tool. Data were collected from observation of 164 cases in five MDTs, and 47 surveys from MDT members (response rate 70%). Presentation of information (case history, radiological, pathological, comorbidities, psychosocial, and patients’ views) and quality of contribution to decision-making of MDT members (surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, nurses, and MDT coordinators) were analyzed via descriptive statistics and the Jonckheere–Terpstra test. Correlation between observational and self-report assessments was assessed with Spearman’s correlations. Results Quality of information presentation: Case histories and radiology information rated highest; patients’ views and comorbidities/psychosocial issues rated lowest (observed: Z  = 14.80, P  ≤ 0.001; self-report: Z  = 3.70, P  
ISSN:1068-9265
1534-4681
DOI:10.1245/s10434-011-1773-5