消化肿瘤多学科会议决策模式的评估:摩洛哥中心的一项前瞻性研究

IF 0.1 Q4 SURGERY
C. Charoui, A. Souadka, S. Saber, R. Latib, L. Rifai, L. Amrani, A. Benkabbou, R. Mohsine, M. Majbar
{"title":"消化肿瘤多学科会议决策模式的评估:摩洛哥中心的一项前瞻性研究","authors":"C. Charoui, A. Souadka, S. Saber, R. Latib, L. Rifai, L. Amrani, A. Benkabbou, R. Mohsine, M. Majbar","doi":"10.46327/msrjg.1.000000000000169bis","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The multidisciplinary team oncology meeting (MDT) has become a standard in oncology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the value of a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making, in the evaluation of the decision-making mode during the digestive cancer MDT in order to reach recommendations for improvement.\n\nResults: Eight consecutive MDTs were observed (N = 228 patients). On average, 32 patients were discussed by MDT with an average of 2 min 55 s (interval: 30 s-10 min 16 s) per patient. A decision was reached in 84.6% of the cases. Although the medical information was judged to be of good quality, the psychosocial information (average 1.29) and the patients' point of view (average 1.03) were judged to be of low quality. For teamwork, the contribution of surgeons (average 4.56) and oncologists (average 3.99) was greater than radiologists (3.12), radiotherapists (1.74) and pathologists (1.02).\n\nConclusions: The tool made it possible to identify a disparity in the quality of the different aspects of the information and in the participation of specialists, making it possible to identify specific improvement measures. Its regular use would improve the quality of patient care.\n\nKeywords: Decision making, Quality improvement, Multidisciplinary Concertation meeting, MDT-MODe, Morocco","PeriodicalId":41186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical and Surgical Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Decision-Making Mode during Digestive Oncology Multidisciplinary Meetings: a Prospective Study in a Moroccan Center\",\"authors\":\"C. Charoui, A. Souadka, S. Saber, R. Latib, L. Rifai, L. Amrani, A. Benkabbou, R. Mohsine, M. Majbar\",\"doi\":\"10.46327/msrjg.1.000000000000169bis\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: The multidisciplinary team oncology meeting (MDT) has become a standard in oncology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the value of a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making, in the evaluation of the decision-making mode during the digestive cancer MDT in order to reach recommendations for improvement.\\n\\nResults: Eight consecutive MDTs were observed (N = 228 patients). On average, 32 patients were discussed by MDT with an average of 2 min 55 s (interval: 30 s-10 min 16 s) per patient. A decision was reached in 84.6% of the cases. Although the medical information was judged to be of good quality, the psychosocial information (average 1.29) and the patients' point of view (average 1.03) were judged to be of low quality. For teamwork, the contribution of surgeons (average 4.56) and oncologists (average 3.99) was greater than radiologists (3.12), radiotherapists (1.74) and pathologists (1.02).\\n\\nConclusions: The tool made it possible to identify a disparity in the quality of the different aspects of the information and in the participation of specialists, making it possible to identify specific improvement measures. Its regular use would improve the quality of patient care.\\n\\nKeywords: Decision making, Quality improvement, Multidisciplinary Concertation meeting, MDT-MODe, Morocco\",\"PeriodicalId\":41186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical and Surgical Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical and Surgical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46327/msrjg.1.000000000000169bis\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical and Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46327/msrjg.1.000000000000169bis","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

多学科肿瘤学小组会议(MDT)已成为肿瘤学的标准会议。本研究的目的是评估一种经过验证的工具——决策观察指标(Metric for The Observation of decision)在评估消化道肿瘤MDT期间决策模式中的价值,以提出改进建议。结果:连续观察8例MDTs (N = 228例)。平均32例患者接受MDT讨论,平均每例患者2分钟55秒(间隔30秒-10分钟16秒)。审结率为84.6%。虽然医学信息质量较好,但心理社会信息(平均1.29)和患者观点(平均1.03)的质量较低。在团队合作方面,外科医生(平均4.56)和肿瘤科医生(平均3.99)的贡献高于放射科医生(3.12)、放射治疗师(1.74)和病理学家(1.02)。结论:该工具可以确定信息的不同方面的质量和专家参与的差异,从而可以确定具体的改进措施。它的定期使用将提高病人护理的质量。关键词:决策,质量改进,多学科集中会议,mdt模式,摩洛哥
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Decision-Making Mode during Digestive Oncology Multidisciplinary Meetings: a Prospective Study in a Moroccan Center
Introduction: The multidisciplinary team oncology meeting (MDT) has become a standard in oncology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the value of a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making, in the evaluation of the decision-making mode during the digestive cancer MDT in order to reach recommendations for improvement. Results: Eight consecutive MDTs were observed (N = 228 patients). On average, 32 patients were discussed by MDT with an average of 2 min 55 s (interval: 30 s-10 min 16 s) per patient. A decision was reached in 84.6% of the cases. Although the medical information was judged to be of good quality, the psychosocial information (average 1.29) and the patients' point of view (average 1.03) were judged to be of low quality. For teamwork, the contribution of surgeons (average 4.56) and oncologists (average 3.99) was greater than radiologists (3.12), radiotherapists (1.74) and pathologists (1.02). Conclusions: The tool made it possible to identify a disparity in the quality of the different aspects of the information and in the participation of specialists, making it possible to identify specific improvement measures. Its regular use would improve the quality of patient care. Keywords: Decision making, Quality improvement, Multidisciplinary Concertation meeting, MDT-MODe, Morocco
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
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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