Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Reorganizing the Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in a Tertiary Centre for Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Adds Value to the Internal and Regional Care Pathways. A Mixed Method Evaluation Cover

Reorganizing the Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in a Tertiary Centre for Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Adds Value to the Internal and Regional Care Pathways. A Mixed Method Evaluation

International Journal of Integrated Care
Volume 21 (2021): Issue 1
By: Lidia S. van Huizen,  Pieter U. Dijkstra,  Patrick H.J. Hemmer,  Boudewijn van Etten,  Carlijn I. Buis,  Linde Olsder,  Frederike G.I. van Vilsteren,  Kees (C.)T. B. Ahaus and  Jan L.N. Roodenburg  
Open Access
|Feb 2021

References

  1. 1van Hoeve JC, Vernooij RWM, Fiander M, et al. Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional and health systems outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic reviews 2020; 9(1): 246. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01498-0
    Back to article
  2. 2Patkar V, Acosta D, Davidson T, et al. Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: evidence, challenges, and the role of clinical decision support technology. International journal of breast cancer 2011; 2011. DOI: 10.4061/2011/831605
    Back to article
  3. 3Kodner DL, Spreeuwenberg C. Integrated care: meaning, logic, applications, and implications – a discussion paper. International journal of integrated care 2002; 2: e12. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.67
    Back to article
  4. 4Minkman MMN. The current state of integrated care: an overview. Journal of Integrated Care Pathways 2012; 6: 346–58. DOI: 10.1108/14769011211285147
    Back to article
  5. 5Berlin A, Sorani M, Sim I. A taxonomic description of computer-based clinical decision support systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2006; 39(6): 656–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2005.12.003
    Back to article
  6. 6Patkar V, Acosta D, Davidson T, et al. Using computerised decision support to improve compliance of cancer multidisciplinary meetings with evidence-based guidance. BMJ open 2012; 2(3). Print 2012. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000439
    Back to article
  7. 7Davies AR, Deans DA, Penman I, et al. The multidisciplinary team meeting improves staging accuracy and treatment selection for gastro-esophageal cancer. Diseases of the esophagus: official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus 2006; 19(6): 496–503. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2006.00629.x
    Back to article
  8. 8Riedel RF, Wang X, McCormack M, et al. Impact of a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic on the timeliness of care. Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2006; 1(7): 692–6. DOI: 10.1016/S1556-0864(15)30383-X
    Back to article
  9. 9Basta YL, Bolle S, Fockens P, et al. The Value of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Systematic Review. Annals of surgical oncology 2017; 24(9): 2669–78. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-5833-3
    Back to article
  10. 10Bydder S, Nowak A, Marion K, et al. The impact of case discussion at a multidisciplinary team meeting on the treatment and survival of patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Internal Medicine Journal 2009; 39(12): 838–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.02019.x
    Back to article
  11. 11Ye YJ, Shen ZL, Sun XT, et al. Impact of multidisciplinary team working on the management of colorectal cancer. Chinese medical journal 2012; 125(2): 172–7.
    Back to article
  12. 12Munro A, Brown M, Niblock P, et al. Do Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) processes influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer? A population-based experience. BMC cancer 2015; 15. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1683-1
    Back to article
  13. 13Prades J, Remue E, van Hoof E, et al. Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2015; 119(4): 464–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.006
    Back to article
  14. 14van Drielen E, de Vries AW, Ottevanger PB, et al. Beter multidiscplinair overleg past bij betere zorg. [Better multidisciplinary team meetings are linked to better care]. Nederlands tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 2012; 156(45): A4856 [in Dutch].
    Back to article
  15. 15Homs MY, van Oijen MG, Wijnhoven BP, et al. Changes in diagnostic and treatment strategies of oesophageal cancer in the period from 2001 to 2009: a survey in the Netherlands. European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology 2012; 24(2): 126–33. DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32834e7f29
    Back to article
  16. 16Kolfschoten NE, Gooiker GA, Bastiaannet E, et al. Combining process indicators to evaluate quality of care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: are scores consistent with short-term outcome? BMJ quality & safety 2012; 21(6): 481–9. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000439
    Back to article
  17. 17Swellengrebel HA, Peters EG, Cats A, et al. Multidisciplinary discussion and management of rectal cancer: a population-based study. World journal of surgery 2011; 35(9): 2125–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1181-9
    Back to article
  18. 18van Steenbergen LN, Lemmens VE, Rutten HJ, et al. Was there shortening of the interval between diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer in southern Netherlands between 2005 and 2008? World journal of surgery 2010; 34(5): 1071–9. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0480-x
    Back to article
  19. 19Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2010; 340: c951. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c951
    Back to article
  20. 20Lamb B, Green JS, Vincent C, et al. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surgical oncology 2011; 20(3): 163–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2010.07.007
    Back to article
  21. 21Slavova-Azmanova NS, Johnson CE, Platell C, et al. Peer review of cancer multidisciplinary teams: is it acceptable in Australia? The Medical journal of Australia 2015; 202(3): 144–7. DOI: 10.5694/mja14.00768
    Back to article
  22. 22Valentijn PP, Schepman SM, Opheij W, et al. Understanding integrated care: a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. International journal of integrated care 2013; 13: e010. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.886
    Back to article
  23. 23European Partnership Action Against Cancer consensus group, Borras JM, Albreht T, et al. Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 2014; 50(3): 475–80.
    Back to article
  24. 24van Zelm R, Coeckelberghs E, Sermeus W, et al. Effects of implementing a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery in ten European hospitals: an international multicenter pre-post-test study. Updates in surgery 2020; 72(1): 61–71. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00706-9
    Back to article
  25. 25Sanmartin C, Berthelot JM, McIntosh CN. Determinants of unacceptable waiting times for specialized services in Canada. Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante 2007; 2(3): e140–54. DOI: 10.12927/hcpol.2007.18679
    Back to article
  26. 26Brady JT, Xu Z, Scarberry KB, et al. Evaluating the Current Status of Rectal Cancer Care in the US: Where We Stand at the Start of the Commission on Cancer’s National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2018; 226(5): 881–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.01.057
    Back to article
  27. 27Basta YL, Tytgat KMAJ, Greuter HH, et al. Organizing and implementing a multidisciplinary fast track oncology clinic. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care 2017; 29(7): 966–71. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx143
    Back to article
  28. 28SONCOS Normeringsrapport 7, pagina’s 22–26 [Standardization report 7, pages 22–26]. https://www.soncos.org/kwaliteit/normeringsrapport2019(07/11):[in Dutch].
    Back to article
  29. 29Munro AJ. Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care: An Idea Whose Time has Gone? Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 2015; 27(12): 728–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2015.08.008
    Back to article
  30. 30Plochg T, Juttman RE, Klazinga NS, et al. Handbook health research (Handboek gezondheidszorgonderzoek). 1st ed. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2007.
    Back to article
  31. 31van Huizen LS, Dijkstra PU, van der Laan BFAM, et al. Multidisciplinary first-day consultation accelerates diagnostic procedures and throughput times of patients in a head-and-neck cancer care pathway, a mixed method study. BMC health services research 2018; 18(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3637-1
    Back to article
  32. 32Vlaams Kankerregistratienetwerk. Vlaams Kankerregistratienetwerk [International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition, updates]. https://www.rivm.nl/media/WHO-FIC/ICS-O-3.pdf 2011; 2019:[240 [in Dutch]].
    Back to article
  33. 33Gioia DA, Gorley KG, Hamilton AL. Seeking Quality Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods 2012; 16(I): 15, 16–31. DOI: 10.1177/1094428112452151
    Back to article
  34. 34Charmaz K. Contructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications 2006.
    Back to article
  35. 35O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2014; 89(9): 1245–51. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
    Back to article
  36. 36Creswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage 2011.
    Back to article
  37. 37Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349–57. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
    Back to article
  38. 38Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, et al. Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qualitative health research, 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1049732316654870
    Back to article
  39. 39Segelman J, Singnomklao T, Hellborg H, et al. Differences in multidisciplinary team assessment and treatment between patients with stage IV colon and rectal cancer. Colorectal disease: the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2009; 11(7): 768–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01648.x
    Back to article
  40. 40Chinai N, Bintcliffe F, Armstrong EM, et al. Does every patient need to be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting? Clinical radiology 2013; 68(8): 780–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.02.011
    Back to article
  41. 41de Ridder M, Balm AJM, Baatenburg de Jong RJ, et al. Variation in head and neck cancer care in the Netherlands: A retrospective cohort evaluation of incidence, treatment and outcome. European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 2017; 43(8): 1494–502. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.02.017
    Back to article
  42. 42Guy JB, Benna M, Xia Y, et al. Quality insurance in head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A watchful eye on real-life experience. Oral oncology 2019; 91: 35–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.02.020
    Back to article
  43. 43Gray R, Gordon B. Meeting patients’ needs. Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary teams meetings in cancer services. 2017; 2019(07/11).
    Back to article
  44. 44Markar SR, Schmidt H, Kunz S, et al. Evolution of standardized clinical pathways: refining multidisciplinary care and process to improve outcomes of the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery: official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2014; 18(7): 1238–46. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2520-6
    Back to article
  45. 45Festen S, Kok M, Hopstaken JS, et al. How to incorporate geriatric assessment in clinical decision-making for older patients with cancer. An implementation study. Journal of geriatric oncology 2019; 10(6): 951–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.006
    Back to article
  46. 46Gagliardi AR, Simunovic M, Langer B, et al. Development of quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery, using a 3-step modified Delphi approach. Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 2005; 48(6): 441–52.
    Back to article
  47. 47Vinod SK, Sidhom MA, Delaney GP. Do multidisciplinary meetings follow guideline-based care? Journal of oncology practice 2010; 6(6): 276–81. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000019
    Back to article
  48. 48Gittell JH, Hajjar L. Strengthening Patient-Centered Care in the VHA: A Relational Model of Change. Journal of general internal medicine 2019; 34(Suppl 1): 7–10. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-04996-7
    Back to article
  49. 49Noyes K, Monson JR, Rizvi I, et al. Regional Multiteam Systems in Cancer Care Delivery. Journal of oncology practice 2016; 12(11): 1059–66. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2016.013896
    Back to article
  50. 50Middenveldt I, Regts G. De ontwikkeling van oncologie netwerken in Nederland. [The development of Oncology Networks in the Netherlands.] Aanbevelingen rond organisatie en financiering. [Recommendations regarding organization and financing]. https://www.oncologienetwerken.nl/sites/default/files/2018-09/Oncologienetwerken%20en%20financiering%20-%20rapport.pdf 2018; [1,54 [in Dutch]].
    Back to article
  51. 51van Huizen LS, Dijkstra P, Halmos GB, et al. Does multidisciplinary videoconferencing between a head-and-neck cancer centre and its partner hospital add value to their patient care and decision-making? A mixed-method evaluation. BMJ open 2019; 9(11): e028609. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028609
    Back to article
  52. 52Gittell JH, Logan C, Cronenwett J, et al. Impact of relational coordination on staff and patient outcomes in outpatient surgical clinics. Health care management review 2020; 45(1): 12–20. DOI: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000192
    Back to article
  53. 53Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, et al. Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? The Lancet. Oncology 2006; 7(11): 935–43. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70940-8
    Back to article
  54. 54Delilovic S, Hasson H, Ahstrom M, et al. Implementing standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) - a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of health care professionals. BMC health services research 2019; 19(1): 577. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4413-6
    Back to article
  55. 55Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Mostafid H, et al. Quality improvement in multidisciplinary cancer teams: an investigation of teamwork and clinical decision-making and cross-validation of assessments. Annals of surgical oncology 2011; 18(13): 3535–43. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1773-5
    Back to article
  56. 56Ottevanger N, Hilbink M, Weenk M, et al. Oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings: evaluation of quality criteria. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 2013; 19(6): 1035–43. DOI: 10.1111/jep.12022
    Back to article
  57. 57Gort M, Broekhuis M, Regts G. How teams use indicators for quality improvement – a multiple-case study on the use of multiple indicators in multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. Social science & medicine (1982) 2013; 96: 69–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.001
    Back to article
  58. 58Jalil R, Soukup T, Akhter W, et al. Quality of leadership in multidisciplinary cancer tumor boards: development and evaluation of a leadership assessment instrument (ATLAS). World journal of urology 2018; 36(7): 1031–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2255-1
    Back to article
  59. 59van der Werf LR, Kok NFM, Buis CI, et al. Implementation and first results of a mandatory, nationwide audit on liver surgery. HPB: the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 2019.
    Back to article
  60. 60Deneckere S, Robyns N, Vanhaecht K, et al. Indicators for follow-up of multidisciplinary teamwork in care processes: results of an international expert panel. Evaluation & the health professions 2011; 34(3): 258–77. DOI: 10.1177/0163278710393736
    Back to article
  61. 61Jalil R, Ahmed M, Green JS, et al. Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective. International journal of surgery (London, England) 2013; 11(5): 389–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.02.026
    Back to article
  62. 62Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire WL. What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Medical care research and review: MCRR 2006; 63(3): 263–300. DOI: 10.1177/1077558706287003
    Back to article
  63. 63Dikken JL, Stiekema J, van de Velde CJ, et al. Quality of care indicators for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Annals of surgical oncology 2013; 20(2): 381–98. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2574-1
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5526 | Journal eISSN: 1568-4156
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 24, 2020
Accepted on: Jan 19, 2021
Published on: Feb 25, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
oncology,
integrated care,
critical pathways (MeSH),
care pathways,
multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM),
added value,
mixed method evaluation

© 2021 Lidia S. van Huizen, Pieter U. Dijkstra, Patrick H.J. Hemmer, Boudewijn van Etten, Carlijn I. Buis, Linde Olsder, Frederike G.I. van Vilsteren, Kees (C.)T. B. Ahaus, Jan L.N. Roodenburg, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 21 (2021): Issue 1Next article