Multidisciplinary team meeting Chairs' attitudes and perceived facilitators, barriers and ideal improvements to meeting functionality: A qualitative study

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Klay Lamprell, Renuka Chittajallu, Gaston Arnolda, Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig, Geoff P. Delaney, Winston Liauw, Ian Olver, Jeffrey Braithwaite
{"title":"Multidisciplinary team meeting Chairs' attitudes and perceived facilitators, barriers and ideal improvements to meeting functionality: A qualitative study","authors":"Klay Lamprell,&nbsp;Renuka Chittajallu,&nbsp;Gaston Arnolda,&nbsp;Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig,&nbsp;Geoff P. Delaney,&nbsp;Winston Liauw,&nbsp;Ian Olver,&nbsp;Jeffrey Braithwaite","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Oncology care provision by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is widely acknowledged as best practice. Formal team meetings, led by chairpersons, coordinate decisions on diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and review. This study addresses a gap in meeting Chairs’ perspectives on factors affecting functionality across the meeting cycle, from pre-meeting patient list triage to post-meeting dissemination of recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person with Chairs within two urban geographical regions in New South Wales, Australia as part of a larger project. Though the population of oncology MDT Chairs in Australia is small, the richness and depth of data from nine Chairs were considered to be valuable knowledge in support of extant literature on meeting functionality. An integrated deductive-inductive approach was applied to data analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Perceived facilitators, barriers, and ideals relating to pre-meeting, in-meeting, and post-meeting functionality were identified across five pre-determined analytic categories: the team; meeting infrastructure; meeting organization and logistics; patient-centered clinical decision-making, and; team governance. Key barriers included inadequate information technology, limited support staff, and lack of dedicated time for Chair duties. Corresponding facilitators included robust Information Technology infrastructure and support, provision of clinically knowledgeable MDT meeting coordinators, and formal employment recognition of Chairs’ responsibilities and skill sets.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Chairs across various tumor streams develop workarounds to overcome barriers and ensure quality meeting outcomes. With more robust support they could enhance value by sharing evidence, conducting audits, and engaging in research. The findings highlight the need for healthcare systems to support tumor stream clinical networks by allocating greater resources to prioritize multidisciplinary meetings and cancer care decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajco.14077","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajco.14077","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Oncology care provision by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is widely acknowledged as best practice. Formal team meetings, led by chairpersons, coordinate decisions on diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and review. This study addresses a gap in meeting Chairs’ perspectives on factors affecting functionality across the meeting cycle, from pre-meeting patient list triage to post-meeting dissemination of recommendations.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person with Chairs within two urban geographical regions in New South Wales, Australia as part of a larger project. Though the population of oncology MDT Chairs in Australia is small, the richness and depth of data from nine Chairs were considered to be valuable knowledge in support of extant literature on meeting functionality. An integrated deductive-inductive approach was applied to data analysis.

Results

Perceived facilitators, barriers, and ideals relating to pre-meeting, in-meeting, and post-meeting functionality were identified across five pre-determined analytic categories: the team; meeting infrastructure; meeting organization and logistics; patient-centered clinical decision-making, and; team governance. Key barriers included inadequate information technology, limited support staff, and lack of dedicated time for Chair duties. Corresponding facilitators included robust Information Technology infrastructure and support, provision of clinically knowledgeable MDT meeting coordinators, and formal employment recognition of Chairs’ responsibilities and skill sets.

Conclusion

Chairs across various tumor streams develop workarounds to overcome barriers and ensure quality meeting outcomes. With more robust support they could enhance value by sharing evidence, conducting audits, and engaging in research. The findings highlight the need for healthcare systems to support tumor stream clinical networks by allocating greater resources to prioritize multidisciplinary meetings and cancer care decision-making.

多学科团队会议主席对会议功能的态度以及认为存在的促进因素、障碍和理想改进措施:定性研究。
目的:多学科团队(MDTs)提供的肿瘤治疗被公认为最佳实践。由主席领导的正式团队会议协调诊断、分期、治疗计划和复查方面的决策。从会前患者名单分流到会后建议发布,会议主席对影响整个会议周期功能的因素的看法存在空白:作为一个大型项目的一部分,我们在澳大利亚新南威尔士州的两个城市地区对主席进行了半结构化访谈。虽然澳大利亚的肿瘤 MDT 组长人数较少,但从九位组长那里获得的丰富而有深度的数据被认为是支持有关会议功能的现有文献的宝贵知识。数据分析采用了演绎与归纳相结合的方法:结果:在五个预先确定的分析类别中,确定了与会前、会中和会后功能相关的促进因素、障碍和理想:团队;会议基础设施;会议组织和后勤;以患者为中心的临床决策;以及团队管理。主要障碍包括信息技术不足、支持人员有限以及主席职责缺乏专门时间。相应的促进因素包括强大的信息技术基础设施和支持、提供临床知识丰富的 MDT 会议协调员,以及对主席职责和技能组合的正式聘用认可:结论:不同肿瘤流的主席都会采取变通方法来克服障碍,确保会议取得高质量的成果。有了更有力的支持,他们可以通过分享证据、进行审计和参与研究来提高价值。研究结果突出表明,医疗保健系统需要通过分配更多资源来支持肿瘤流临床网络,优先考虑多学科会议和癌症护理决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信