5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A multicentre cross‐sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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, < .001, adjusted R 2 = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions ( P = .001), providing answers ( P = .001), team size ( P = .007), gender balance ( P = .003), and clinical complexity ( P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions ( P = .007), gender imbalance ( P = .003), logistical issues ( P = .001), time‐workload pressures ( P = .002), and time spent in the meeting ( P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality ( P = .001), interactions ( P = .001), group size ( P = .003), and clinical complexity ( P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions ( P = .001) and time‐workload pressures ( P = .001).

          Discussion

          To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive‐catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time‐workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety.

          Abstract

          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

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mental fatigue and the control of cognitive processes: effects on perseveration and planning.

          We tested whether behavioural manifestations of mental fatigue may be linked to compromised executive control, which refers to the ability to regulate perceptual and motor processes for goal-directed behaviour. In complex tasks, compromised executive control may become manifest as decreased flexibility and sub-optimal planning. In the study we use the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) and the Tower of London (TOL), which respectively measure flexibility (e.g., perseverative errors) and planning. A simple memory task was used as a control measure. Fatigue was induced through working for 2 h on cognitively demanding tasks. The results showed that compared to a non-fatigued group, fatigued participants displayed more perseveration on the WCST and showed prolonged planning time on the TOL. Fatigue did not affect performance on the simple memory task. These findings indicate compromised executive control under fatigue, which may explain the typical errors and sub-optimal performance that are often found in fatigued people. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science B.V.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review.

            Factors that affect the quality of clinical decisions of multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs) are not well understood. We reviewed and synthesised the evidence on clinical, social and technological factors that affect the quality of MDT clinical decision-making. Electronic databases were searched in May 2009. Eligible studies reported original data, quantitative or qualitative. Data were extracted and tabulated by two blinded reviewers, and study quality formally evaluated. Thirty-seven studies were included. Study quality was low to medium. Studies assessed quality of care decisions via the effect of MDTs on care management. MDTs changed cancer management by individual physicians in 2-52% of cases. Failure to reach a decision at MDT discussion was found in 27-52% of cases. Decisions could not be implemented in 1-16% of cases. Team decisions are made by physicians, using clinical information. Nursing personnel do not have an active role, and patient preferences are not discussed. Time pressure, excessive caseload, low attendance, poor teamworking and lack of leadership lead to lack of information and deterioration of decision-making. Telemedicine is increasingly used in developed countries, with no detriment to quality of MDT decisions. Team/social factors affect management decisions by cancer MDTs. Inclusion of time to prepare for MDTs into team-members' job plans, making team and leadership skills training available to team-members, and systematic input from nursing personnel would address some of the current shortcomings. These improvements ought to be considered at national policy level, with the ultimate aim of improving cancer care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change

              In a companion paper, we proposed that cognitive debiasing is a skill essential in developing sound clinical reasoning to mitigate the incidence of diagnostic failure. We reviewed the origins of cognitive biases and some proposed mechanisms for how debiasing processes might work. In this paper, we first outline a general schema of how cognitive change occurs and the constraints that may apply. We review a variety of individual factors, many of them biases themselves, which may be impediments to change. We then examine the major strategies that have been developed in the social sciences and in medicine to achieve cognitive and affective debiasing, including the important concept of forcing functions. The abundance and rich variety of approaches that exist in the literature and in individual clinical domains illustrate the difficulties inherent in achieving cognitive change, and also the need for such interventions. Ongoing cognitive debiasing is arguably the most important feature of the critical thinker and the well-calibrated mind. We outline three groups of suggested interventions going forward: educational strategies, workplace strategies and forcing functions. We stress the importance of ambient and contextual influences on the quality of individual decision making and the need to address factors known to impair calibration of the decision maker. We also emphasise the importance of introducing these concepts and corollary development of training in critical thinking in the undergraduate level in medical education.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                tayana.soukup@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Cancer Med
                Cancer Med
                10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7634
                CAM4
                Cancer Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2045-7634
                13 August 2020
                October 2020
                : 9
                : 19 ( doiID: 10.1002/cam4.v9.19 )
                : 7083-7099
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Centre for Implementation Science King’s College London UK
                [ 2 ] Cambridge University Hospital NHS Trust London UK
                [ 3 ] Department of Surgery and Cancer Imperial College London London UK
                [ 4 ] HeLEX Centre University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [ 5 ] Royal Derby Hospital Derby UK
                [ 6 ] Chelmsford Breast Unit Broomfield Hospital Chelmsford UK
                [ 7 ] Whipps Cross University Hospital Barts Health NHS Trust London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Tayana Soukup, Research Scientist, Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service & Population Research Department, King’s College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF.

                Email: tayana.soukup@ 123456kcl.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0203-7264
                Article
                CAM43366
                10.1002/cam4.3366
                7541152
                32794351
                180fc8aa-153c-40a7-a17b-dffcb8151f9f
                © 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 April 2020
                : 15 July 2020
                : 20 July 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 7, Pages: 17, Words: 12463
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR
                Categories
                Original Research
                Clinical Cancer Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.2 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2020

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                cancer,cancer multidisciplinary team meetings,decision making,multidisciplinary teams

                Comments

                Comment on this article