Assessing Craniofacial Team Functioning During Virtual Multidisciplinary Team Meetings

ABSTRACT

Background/Purpose: The craniofacial team meeting represents a critical timepoint at which a diverse group of disciplines assemble in quorum to discuss the complex medical and psychosocial issues facing their patients and create treatment plans to address them. Professionals from not only different disciplines but from entirely different fields must efficiently amalgamate their expertise to create one intricate plan for their unique patient population. It is this diversity of disciplines represented and the complexity of subject matter that makes craniofacial team meetings ideal for studying team functioning during multidisciplinary meetings. The global pandemic necessitated a shift of these complex meetings to the virtual setting. While providing direct patient care (i.e. tele-health) has been studied extensively, the literature on virtual team meetings is lacking. The authors of this study evaluated the team functioning of one craniofacial team by studying their virtual team meetings. Methods/Description Ten virtual team meetings, including 94 patient case discussions, from a 3-month period in late 2020 were recorded and scored individually by three members of the research team using modified versions of the standardized multidisciplinary team Meeting Observational Tool (MOT) and the Metric of Decision-Making (MODe). The mean score amongst the three observers for each category of team functioning was used for analysis. Participants' subjective assessments of team meetings were elicited through monthly Qualtrics surveys. Results: Our results indicate that team functioning during virtual team meetings was high for providing case history, exhibiting optimal team behavior, and providing a treatment plan for individual case discussions. Patient-centered and psychosocial categories received lower scores. Survey respondents generally regarded their team as highly functioning during team meetings, with lower marks given only for decision-making efficiency and full participation from all disciplines. The meeting technology and equipment received a high score on average. Additionally, participants indicated that the virtual format did not enhance or hinder team functioning during team meetings. Conclusions: Amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic it is important to study the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings held in a virtual format. Our findings suggest that virtual setting allows for high team functioning as measured by both objective and subjective assessments and should therefore be considered a viable alternative to in-person meetings. The team performed best in discussing clinical topics, generating treatment plans, and team behavior, including equality among disciplines. Psychosocial matters and patient perspectives were not discussed as extensively as clinical topics and the team overestimated their coverage of both psychosocial matters and patient perspectives, consistent with previous studies on team functioning.