Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 < 0.001). Contribution to decision-making: Surgeons and oncologists rated highest, nurses and MDT coordinators rated lowest, and others in between (observed: Z = 20.00, P ≤ 0.001; self-report: Z = 8.10, P < 0.001). Correlations between observational and self-report assessments: Median Spearman’s rho = 0.74 (range = 0.66–0.91; P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The quality of teamworking and clinical decision-making in MDTs can reliably be assessed using observational and self-report metrics. MDT members have good insight into their own team performance. Such robust assessment methods could provide the basis of a toolkit for MDT team evaluation and improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American College of Surgeons. Commission on cancer. Cancer program standards. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2004, revised 2009. Available from: http://facs.org/cancer/coc/programstandards.html. Last Accessed 01 March 2011

  2. The Department of Health. Manual for cancer services. London: The Department of Health; 2004.

  3. McAvoy B. Optimising cancer care in Australia. Melbourne: National Cancer Control Initiative. Aust Fam Physician. 2003; 32(5):369–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wright FC, Lookhong N, Urbach D, Davis D, McLeod RS, Gagliardi AR. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: identifying opportunities to promote implementation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16(10):2731–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. NHS National Cancer Action Team. Multidisciplinary team members views about MDT working: Results from a survey commissioned by the National Cancer Action Team. London: NHS National Cancer Action Team; 2009.

  6. Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, Griffith C, Trevatt P, Richards M, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ. 2010;340:c951. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hong NJ, Wright FC, Gagliardi AR, Paszat LF. Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(2):125–34. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, Vincent C, Green JSA, Sevdalis N. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1675-6 [Online March 26, 2011].

  9. Forrest LM, McMillan DC, McArdle CS, Dunlop DJ. An evaluation of the impact of a multidisciplinary team, in a single centre, on treatment and survival in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(9):977–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Newman E, Guest A, Helvie M, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006; 107(10):2343–2351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, et al. Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. Br J Cancer. 2003; 89(1):15–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Look Hong NJ, Gagliardi AR, Bronskill SE, Paszat LF, Wright FC. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring obstacles and facilitators to their implementation. J Oncol Pract. 2010; 6(2):61–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamb B, Wong H, Vincent C, et al. Teamwork and team performance in urological multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational assessment tool. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048660.

  14. Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 2001; 91(7):1231–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pawlik TM, Laheru D, Hruban RH, et al. Evaluating the impact of a single-day multidisciplinary clinic on the management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15(8):2081–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bumm R, Feith M, Lordick F, et al. Impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer. Acta Chirurgica Austriaca. 207; 39(3):136–40.

  17. Blazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, et al. Analysis of clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol. 2006; 17(3):457–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Leo F, Venissac N, Poudenx M, et al. Multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: how to test its efficacy? J Thorac Oncol. 2007; 2(1):69–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wood JJ, Metcalfe C, Paes A, et al. An evaluation of treatment decisions at a colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary team. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(8):769–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kidger J, Murdoch J, Donovan JL, et al. Clinical decision-making in a multidisciplinary gynaecological cancer team: a qualitative study. BJOG. 2009; 116(4):511–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lanceley A, Savage J, Menon U, et al. Influences on multidisciplinary team decisionmaking. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008; 18(2):215–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lamb BW, Green JSA, Vincent C, et al. (2010) Decision-making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2010.07.007. Online 3 March 2011.

  23. Calland JF, Guerlain S, Adams RB, et al. A systems approach to surgical safety. Surg Endosc. 2002; 16(6):1005–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, et al. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004; 239(4):475–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Arora S, Tierney T, Sevdalis N, et al. The Imperial Stress Assessment Tool (ISAT): a feasible, reliable and valid approach to measuring stress in the operating room. World J Surg. 2010; 34(8):1756–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, et al. Rating non-technical skills: Developing a behavioural marker system for use in anaesthesia. Cogn Technol Work. 2010; (6):165–71.

  27. Undre S, Sevdalis N, Vincent C. Observing and assessing surgical teams: the observational teamwork assessment for surgery© (OTAS)©. In: Flin R, Mitchell L, editors. Safer surgery: analysing behaviour in the operating theatre, 1st edn. (2009). Derbyshire: Ashgate.

  28. Undre S, Sevdalis N, Healey AN, et al. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery (OTAS): refinement and application in urological surgery. World J Surg. 2007; 31(7):1373–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lamb B, Payne H, Vincent C, et al. The role of oncologists in multidisciplinary cancer teams in the UK: an untapped resource for team leadership. J Eval Clin Prac. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01507.x [Online March 3, 2011].

  30. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; (3):CD000259.

  31. Undre S, Koutantji M, Sevdalis N, et al. Multidisciplinary crisis simulations: the way forward for training surgical teams. World J Surg. 2007; 31(9):1843–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abell N, Springer DW, Kamata A. Developing and validating rapid assessment instruments. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Jonckheere AR. A test of significance for the relation between m rankings and k ranked categories. Br J Stat Psych. 1954; 7: 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Amir Z, Scully J, Borrill C. The professional role of breast cancer nurses in multidisciplinary breast cancer care teams. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004; 8(4):306–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Junnola T, Eriksson E, Salantera S, et al. Nurses’ decision-making in collecting information for the assessment of patients’ nursing problems. J Clin Nurs. 2002; 11(2):186–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stalfors J, Lundberg C, Westin T. Quality assessment of a multidisciplinary tumour meeting for patients with head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh). 2007; 127(1):82–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lutterbach J, Pagenstecher A, Spreer J, et al. The brain tumor board: lessons to be learned from an interdisciplinary conference. Onkologie. 2005; 28(1):22–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Healey A, Undre S, Vincent C. Developing observational measures of performance in surgical teams. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(Suppl 1):i33–i40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, et al. Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery. 2006; 139(2):140–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Künzle B, Kolbe M, Grote G. Ensuring patient safety through effective leadership behaviour: A literature review. Safety Sci. 2010; 48(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to the Pelican Cancer Foundation (UK) and Action for Bladder Cancer (UK) for facilitating the research reported here. This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research through the Imperial Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality and Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust R&D Department. The funding source played no role in study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, in the writing of the report or the decision to submit the paper for publication. The corresponding author had full access to all data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 5th Floor Medical School Building, St. Mary’s Hospital, London, UK

    B. W. Lamb MRCS, N. Sevdalis PhD & C. Vincent PhD

  2. Department of Urology, Whipps Cross University Hospital, London, UK

    B. W. Lamb MRCS & J. S. A. Green FRCS (Urol.)

  3. Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK

    H. Mostafid FRCS (Urol.)

Authors
  1. B. W. Lamb MRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Sevdalis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Mostafid FRCS (Urol.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Vincent PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. S. A. Green FRCS (Urol.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. W. Lamb MRCS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamb, B.W., Sevdalis, N., Mostafid, H. et al. Quality Improvement in Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams: An Investigation of Teamwork and Clinical Decision-Making and Cross-Validation of Assessments. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 3535–3543 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1773-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1773-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation