Search

Introduction: Functional perspective of team decision-making highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between team interaction/communication during a given task, the internal factors that emanate from within a group (e.g., team composition), and the external circumstances (e.g., workload and time pressures). As an underexplored area, we explored these relationships in the context of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (aka tumor boards). Materials and methods: Three cancer MDTs with 44 team members were recruited from three teaching hospitals in the United Kingdom. Thirty of their weekly meetings encompassing 822 case reviews were filmed. Validated instruments were used to assess each case: Bales' Interaction Process Analysis that captures frequency of task-oriented and socio-emotional interactions/communication; and Measure of case-Discussion Complexity that captures clinical and logistic complexities. We also measured team size, disciplinary diversity, gender, time-workload pressure, and time-on-task. Partial correlation analysis controlling for team/tumor type and case complexity was used for analysis. Results: Clinical complexity positively correlated with task-oriented communication, e.g., gives opinion (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), and logistical issues with negative socio-emotional interactions, e.g., antagonism (r = 0.14, p < 0.01). Time-workload pressure correlated with reduced task-oriented communication, e.g., gives opinion (r = −0.15, p < 0.01), and positive socio-emotional interactions, e.g., solidarity (r = −0.17, p < 0.001). Time-on-task negatively correlated with task-oriented communication, e.g., asks for orientation (r = −0.16, p < 0.001), and positive socio-emotional interactions, e.g., agrees (r = −0.21, p < 0.001). Team size and disciplinary diversity positively correlated with task-oriented communication, e.g., asks for orientation (r = 0.13, p < 0.001; r = 0.09, p < 0.05), and negative socio-emotional interactions, e.g., antagonism (r = 0.10, p < 0.01; r = 0.08, p < 0.05). Gender balance had no significant relationships (all p > 0.05), however, case reviews with more males present were associated with more tension (r = 0.09, p < 0.01) and less disagreements (r = −0.11, p < 0.01), while when more females present there were more disagreements (r = 0.10, p < 0.01) and less tension (r = −0.11, p < 0.01). Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the relationship between MDT interaction/communication and the external/internal factors. Smaller size, gender balanced teams with core disciplines present, and streamlining workload to reduce time-workload pressure, time-on-task effects, and logistical issues appear more conducive to building and maintain optimal MDTs. Our methodology could be applied to other MDT-driven areas of healthcare.

Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case‐complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making. Methods This was a cross‐sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions. Results The full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R 2 = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P, To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in the context of cancer MDT meetings. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of decision making, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions across 3 cancer teams and 30 of their weekly meetings. One novel finding is unraveling the sociocognitive predictors of team DM quality, while another is the cognitive‐catch 22 effect

Background and Objective There is increasing emphasis in cancer care globally for care to be reviewed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (ie, in tumor boards). Evidence and recommendations suggest that the complexity of each patient case needs to be considered as care is planned; however, no tool currently exists for cancer teams to do so. We report the development and early validation of such a tool. Methods We used a mixed‐methods approach involving psychometric evaluation and expert review to develop the Measure of case‐Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) between May 2014 and November 2016. The study ran in six phases and included ethnographic interviews, observations, surveys, feasibility and reliability testing, expert consensus, and multiple expert‐team reviews. Results Phase‐1: case complexity factors identified through literature review and expert interviews; Phase‐2: 51 factors subjected to iterative review and content validation by nine cancer teams across four England Trusts with nine further items identified; Phase 3: 60 items subjected to expert review distilled to the most relevant; Phase 4: item weighing and further content validation through a national UK survey; Phases 5 and 6: excellent interassessor reliability between clinical and nonclinical observers, and adequate validity on 903 video case discussions achieved. A final set of 27 factors, measuring clinical and logistical complexities were integrated into MeDiC. Conclusions MeDiC is an evidence‐based and expert‐driven tool that gauges the complexity of cancer cases. MeDiC may be used as a clinical quality assurance and screening tool for tumor board consideration through case selection and prioritization., There is increasing emphasis in cancer care globally for care to be reviewed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (ie, in tumor boards). Evidence and recommendations suggest that the complexity of each patient case needs to be considered as care is planned, however no tool currently exists for cancer teams to do so. We report the development and early validation of such a tool. We used a mixed‐methods approach involving psychometric evaluation and expert review to develop the Measure of case‐Discussion Complexity (MeDiC).

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine effectiveness of codesigned quality-improving interventions with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with high workload and prolonged meetings to ascertain: (1) presence and impact of decision-making (DM) fatigue on team performance in the weekly MDT meeting and (2) impact of a short meeting break as a countermeasure of DM fatigue.Design and interventionsThis is a longitudinal multiphase study with a codesigned intervention bundle assessed within team audit and feedback cycles. The interventions comprised short meeting breaks, as well as change of room layout and appointing a meeting chair.Setting and participantsA breast cancer MDT with 15 members was recruited between 2013 and 2015 from a teaching hospital of the London (UK) metropolitan area.MeasuresA validated observational tool (Metric for the Observation of Decision-making) was used by trained raters to assess quality of DM during 1335 patient reviews. The tool scores quality of information and team contributions to reviews by individual disciplines (Likert-based scores), which represent our two primary outcome measures.ResultsData were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance. DM fatigue was present in the MDT meetings: quality of information (M=16.36 to M=15.10) and contribution scores (M=27.67 to M=21.52) declined from first to second half of meetings at baseline. Of the improvement bundle, we found breaks reduced the effect of fatigue: following introduction of breaks (but not other interventions) information quality remained stable between first and second half of meetings (M=16.00 to M=15.94), and contributions to team DM improved overall (M=17.66 to M=19.85).ConclusionQuality of cancer team DM is affected by fatigue due to sequential case review over often prolonged periods of time. This detrimental effect can be reversed by introducing a break in the middle of the meeting. The study offers a methodology based on ‘team audit and feedback’ principle for codesigning interventions to improve teamwork in cancer care.

Background Multidisciplinary team (MDT)-driven cancer care is a mandatory UK national policy, widely used globally. However, few studies have examined how MDT members make decisions as a team. We report a single-centre prospective study on team working within breast cancer MDT. Methods This was a prospective observational study of 10 breast MDT meetings (MDM). Trained clinical observer scored quality of presented information and disciplinary contribution to case reviews in real time, using a validated tool, namely Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making. Data were analysed to evaluate quality of team working. Results Ten MDMs were observed (N = 346 patients). An average of 42 patients were discussed per MDM (range: 29–51) with an average 3 min 20 s (range: 31 s–9 min) dedicated to each patient. Management decision was made in 99% of cases. In terms of contribution to case reviews, breast care nurses scored significantly (p

Isolated amyloidomas derived from insulin are extremely rare, and there is only one reported case to date of insulin-derived amyloidoma in the breast. We present the case of a 36-year-old woman reporting a lump in the right breast. It was clinically assessed as a probable fibroadenoma but was removed surgically given the size of the lesion. On histological analysis, the lesion had features consistent with amyloid. Further investigations showed the amyloid to be derived from insulin. The lump was removed in its entirety, and the patient made a full recovery.