虚拟肿瘤委员会平台:一种增强复杂恶性肿瘤决策的方法。

S. Hopkins, R. Vidri, M. Hill, Namrata Vijayvergia, J. Farma
{"title":"虚拟肿瘤委员会平台:一种增强复杂恶性肿瘤决策的方法。","authors":"S. Hopkins, R. Vidri, M. Hill, Namrata Vijayvergia, J. Farma","doi":"10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nMultidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) are crucial for decision-making and management of patients diagnosed with complex malignancies. The social distancing conditions imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 presented an opportunity to compare virtual versus in-person TBs.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA retrospective analysis of attendance data from an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center's gastrointestinal (GI) TB participant data from September 2019 to October 2020. In addition, an online survey assessing the virtual TB experience was sent to participants of all TBs. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to evaluate preintervention and postintervention GI TB attendance only.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe overall mean attendance for GI TB was 30 participants; turnout was higher for virtual format compared to in-person (32 versus 23 attendees, P < 0.001). This increase was seen across all participant categories: attending physicians (15 versus 11 attendees, P < 0.001), trainees (11 versus 8, P < 0.001), and support staff (6 versus 3, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases discussed between TB formats. The majority of the 141 survey respondents (across all TB) were attending physicians with >20-year experience. Most supported a permanent virtual or hybrid TB format, 72.5% found this format to be more time efficient and with similar productivity, and 85.8% found it easier to attend. The majority (89.9%) felt confident that the decision-making process was not affected by virtual interactions.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nA virtual platform for multispecialty TBs allows for greater attendance without sacrificing the decision-making process. This survey supports continuing with a virtual or hybrid format, which may increase attendance and facilitate access to multidisciplinary discussions leading to improved patient care.","PeriodicalId":191568,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of surgical research","volume":"192 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Virtual Tumor Board Platform: A Way to Enhance Decision-Making for Complex Malignancies.\",\"authors\":\"S. Hopkins, R. Vidri, M. Hill, Namrata Vijayvergia, J. Farma\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.316\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION\\nMultidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) are crucial for decision-making and management of patients diagnosed with complex malignancies. The social distancing conditions imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 presented an opportunity to compare virtual versus in-person TBs.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nA retrospective analysis of attendance data from an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center's gastrointestinal (GI) TB participant data from September 2019 to October 2020. In addition, an online survey assessing the virtual TB experience was sent to participants of all TBs. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to evaluate preintervention and postintervention GI TB attendance only.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe overall mean attendance for GI TB was 30 participants; turnout was higher for virtual format compared to in-person (32 versus 23 attendees, P < 0.001). This increase was seen across all participant categories: attending physicians (15 versus 11 attendees, P < 0.001), trainees (11 versus 8, P < 0.001), and support staff (6 versus 3, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases discussed between TB formats. The majority of the 141 survey respondents (across all TB) were attending physicians with >20-year experience. Most supported a permanent virtual or hybrid TB format, 72.5% found this format to be more time efficient and with similar productivity, and 85.8% found it easier to attend. The majority (89.9%) felt confident that the decision-making process was not affected by virtual interactions.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nA virtual platform for multispecialty TBs allows for greater attendance without sacrificing the decision-making process. This survey supports continuing with a virtual or hybrid format, which may increase attendance and facilitate access to multidisciplinary discussions leading to improved patient care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":191568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of surgical research\",\"volume\":\"192 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of surgical research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.316\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of surgical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

多学科肿瘤委员会(TBs)对诊断为复杂恶性肿瘤的患者的决策和管理至关重要。2019年冠状病毒病造成的社会距离条件为比较虚拟结核病和真人结核病提供了机会。方法回顾性分析2019年9月至2020年10月美国国家癌症研究所指定癌症中心胃肠道(GI)结核病参与者的出诊数据。此外,还向所有结核病患者发送了一份评估虚拟结核病体验的在线调查。中断时间序列分析仅用于评估干预前和干预后GI TB的出勤率。结果胃肠道结核的总体平均出席率为30人;与20年的经验相比,虚拟形式的投票率更高(32人对23人)。大多数人支持永久虚拟或混合TB格式,72.5%的人认为这种格式更节省时间,生产率相似,85.8%的人认为更容易参加。大多数人(89.9%)确信决策过程不受虚拟互动的影响。结论多专科TBs的虚拟平台可以在不牺牲决策过程的情况下提高出勤率。这项调查支持继续采用虚拟或混合形式,这可能会增加出勤率,并促进多学科讨论,从而改善患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Virtual Tumor Board Platform: A Way to Enhance Decision-Making for Complex Malignancies.
INTRODUCTION Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) are crucial for decision-making and management of patients diagnosed with complex malignancies. The social distancing conditions imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 presented an opportunity to compare virtual versus in-person TBs. METHODS A retrospective analysis of attendance data from an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center's gastrointestinal (GI) TB participant data from September 2019 to October 2020. In addition, an online survey assessing the virtual TB experience was sent to participants of all TBs. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to evaluate preintervention and postintervention GI TB attendance only. RESULTS The overall mean attendance for GI TB was 30 participants; turnout was higher for virtual format compared to in-person (32 versus 23 attendees, P < 0.001). This increase was seen across all participant categories: attending physicians (15 versus 11 attendees, P < 0.001), trainees (11 versus 8, P < 0.001), and support staff (6 versus 3, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases discussed between TB formats. The majority of the 141 survey respondents (across all TB) were attending physicians with >20-year experience. Most supported a permanent virtual or hybrid TB format, 72.5% found this format to be more time efficient and with similar productivity, and 85.8% found it easier to attend. The majority (89.9%) felt confident that the decision-making process was not affected by virtual interactions. CONCLUSIONS A virtual platform for multispecialty TBs allows for greater attendance without sacrificing the decision-making process. This survey supports continuing with a virtual or hybrid format, which may increase attendance and facilitate access to multidisciplinary discussions leading to improved patient care.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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