Physicians’ attitudes and perspectives regarding the uptake of psychosocial aspects and/or patient preferences during multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology

IF 0.8 Q4 NURSING
S. Baes, M. Horlait, S. Dhaene, M. Leys
{"title":"Physicians’ attitudes and perspectives regarding the uptake of psychosocial aspects and/or patient preferences during multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology","authors":"S. Baes, M. Horlait, S. Dhaene, M. Leys","doi":"10.1177/2053434520959678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Coordinating cancer care is challenging because of its complexity. To partly encounter this complexity, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) were implemented to evaluate diagnosis, discuss treatment options and collectively decide upon the most optimal patient care and treatment plan. In cancer trajectories, medical professionals have a coordinating role and final decision responsibility. As a consequence patient-centred non-biomedical information are easily overlooked during discussions in MDTMs. This study aims to uncover physicians’ perceived barriers regarding the uptake of psychosocial aspects and/or patient preferences in the cancer treatment decision-making process during Multidisciplinary Oncology Consultations (MOCs), a specific type of MDTM in Belgium. Methods Between March 2019 and May 2019 semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty medical professionals specialized in oncology. Grounded theory principles were used to detect and classify perceived barriers and patterns emerging regarding the uptake of psychosocial information in the cancer treatment decision-making process. Results Although physicians showed an open attitude towards taking into account psychosocial aspects and patient preferences in treatment decisions, the majority of respondents is not convinced the MOC is the best place to discuss these aspects. Physicians reported organisational, work process, and health system related barriers. Discussion The MOC emerges as a medicalized form of team discussion that, in its current form, does not reach its objective of truly integrated multidisciplinarity as cancer care is demanding. The working practices of the MOC can be optimized to evolve towards a truly interdisciplinary approach.","PeriodicalId":43751,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Care Coordination","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2053434520959678","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Care Coordination","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2053434520959678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Introduction Coordinating cancer care is challenging because of its complexity. To partly encounter this complexity, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) were implemented to evaluate diagnosis, discuss treatment options and collectively decide upon the most optimal patient care and treatment plan. In cancer trajectories, medical professionals have a coordinating role and final decision responsibility. As a consequence patient-centred non-biomedical information are easily overlooked during discussions in MDTMs. This study aims to uncover physicians’ perceived barriers regarding the uptake of psychosocial aspects and/or patient preferences in the cancer treatment decision-making process during Multidisciplinary Oncology Consultations (MOCs), a specific type of MDTM in Belgium. Methods Between March 2019 and May 2019 semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty medical professionals specialized in oncology. Grounded theory principles were used to detect and classify perceived barriers and patterns emerging regarding the uptake of psychosocial information in the cancer treatment decision-making process. Results Although physicians showed an open attitude towards taking into account psychosocial aspects and patient preferences in treatment decisions, the majority of respondents is not convinced the MOC is the best place to discuss these aspects. Physicians reported organisational, work process, and health system related barriers. Discussion The MOC emerges as a medicalized form of team discussion that, in its current form, does not reach its objective of truly integrated multidisciplinarity as cancer care is demanding. The working practices of the MOC can be optimized to evolve towards a truly interdisciplinary approach.
肿瘤学多学科团队会议期间,医生对心理社会方面和/或患者偏好的接受态度和观点
引言协调癌症护理由于其复杂性而具有挑战性。为了部分解决这种复杂性,实施了多学科团队会议(MDTM),以评估诊断,讨论治疗方案,并共同决定最优化的患者护理和治疗计划。在癌症的发展轨迹中,医疗专业人员具有协调作用和最终决策责任。因此,在MDTM的讨论中,以患者为中心的非生物医学信息很容易被忽视。本研究旨在揭示医生在比利时MDTM的一种特殊类型的多学科肿瘤咨询(MOCs)期间,在癌症治疗决策过程中对心理社会方面和/或患者偏好的理解障碍。方法在2019年3月至2019年5月期间,对20名肿瘤学专业医疗人员进行了半结构化访谈。在癌症治疗决策过程中,使用有根据的理论原则来检测和分类在接受心理社会信息方面出现的感知障碍和模式。结果尽管医生对在治疗决策中考虑心理社会方面和患者偏好表现出开放的态度,但大多数受访者并不相信MOC是讨论这些方面的最佳场所。医生报告了组织、工作流程和卫生系统相关的障碍。讨论MOC作为一种医疗化的团队讨论形式出现,以其目前的形式,并没有达到癌症护理所要求的真正整合多学科的目标。主运行中心的工作实践可以进行优化,以朝着真正跨学科的方法发展。
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
3.10
自引率
14.30%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Care Coordination (formerly published as the International Journal of Care Pathways) provides an international forum for the latest scientific research in care coordination. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles which describe basic research to a multidisciplinary field as well as other broader approaches and strategies hypothesized to improve care coordination. The Journal offers insightful overviews and reflections on innovation, underlying issues, and thought provoking opinion pieces in related fields. Articles from multidisciplinary fields are welcomed from leading health care academics and policy-makers. Published articles types include original research, reviews, guidelines papers, book reviews, and news items.
×
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