Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Case review and discussion at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have evolved into standard practice in cancer care with the aim to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a basis for work to optimize the MDTMs, we investigated participants' views on the meeting function, including perceived benefits and barriers. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study design, 244 health professionals from south Sweden rated MDTM meeting structure and function, benefits from these meetings and barriers to reach a treatment recommendation. RESULTS: The top-ranked advantages from MDTMs were support for patient management and competence development. Low ratings applied to monitoring patients for clinical trial inclusion and structured work to improve the MDTM. Nurses and cancer care coordinators did less often than physicians report involvement in the case discussions. Major benefits from MDTM were reported to be more accurate treatment recommendations, multidisciplinary evaluation and adherence to clinical guidelines. Major barriers to a joint treatment recommendation were reported to be need for supplementary investigations and insufficient pathology reports. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals' report multiple benefits from MDTMs, but also define areas for improvement, e.g. access to complete information and clarified roles for the different health professions. The emerging picture suggests that structures for regular MDTM evaluations and increased focus on patient-related perspectives should be developed and implemented.

Determinants of variable resource use for multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have developed into standard of care to provide expert opinion and to grant evidence-based recommendations on diagnostics and treatment of cancer. Though MDTMs are associated with a range of benefits, a growing number of cases, complex case discussion and an increasing number of participants raise questions on cost versus benefit. We aimed to determine cost of MDTMs and to define determinants hereof based on observations in Swedish cancer care. METHODS: Data were collected through observations of 50 MDTMs and from questionnaire data from 206 health professionals that participated in these meetings. RESULTS: The MDTMs lasted mean 0.88 h and managed mean 12.6 cases with mean 4.2 min per case. Participants were mean 8.2 physicians and 2.9 nurses/other health professionals. Besides the number of cases discussed, meeting duration was also influenced by cancer diagnosis, hospital type and use of video facilities. When preparatory work, participation and post-MDTM work were considered, physicians spent mean 4.1 h per meeting. The cost per case discussion was mean 212 (range 91-595) EUR and the cost per MDTM was mean 2675 (range 1439-4070) EUR. CONCLUSIONS: We identify considerable variability in resource use for MDTMs in cancer care and demonstrate that 84% of the total cost is derived from physician time. The variability demonstrated underscores the need for regular and structured evaluations to ensure cost effective MDTM services.