Influences on multidisciplinary team decision-making

The objective is to explore how clinical decisions are made in a cancer multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM). The study design is qualitative based on participant observation, in depth interviews, and questionnaires. The research setting was weekly cancer MDM which provides a forum for clinical debate for practitioners in the field of women's health, working within one Cancer Network in England. The participants were 53 practitioners attending a weekly MDM over a 4-month period. Analysis of nonparticipant observation data and practitioner interview narratives identified key influences on the work of the MDM, and in particular decision-making. The research identified three major influences on the conduct of the MDM. First, MDM discussions are dominated by those with surgical, medical, or diagnostic expertise with limited contributions from those with a nursing, palliative, or psychosocial background. Second, decision-making is shaped by an overriding need to comply with policy initiatives concerning the organization of diagnosis and treatment. The third influence is whether the patient is known or unknown to some degree by members of the MDM. Where there is preexisting knowledge of the patient, the discussion and decision is inclusive of a wider range of disciplines. Team working in these circumstances is an acknowledged source of satisfaction and motivation. Where the patient is not known, discussion concerns only the physical details necessary to make a diagnosis and contributions from the wider team (including those with knowledge of psychosocial care) are rare. Practitioners' sphere of expertise, Department of Health policy, and familiarity of the team with the patient are key factors in shaping decision-making in MDMs.

[1]  L. Lemieux-Charles,et al.  What Do We Know about Health Care Team Effectiveness? A Review of the Literature , 2006, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[2]  C Metcalfe,et al.  Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. , 2006, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  I R Daniels,et al.  MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins? , 2006, British Journal of Cancer.

[4]  Clinical Judgement in the Health and Welfare Professions: Extending the Evidence Base , 2005 .

[5]  S. Mickan,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of health care teams. , 2005, Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association.

[6]  G. Caplan,et al.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Multidisciplinary Intervention After Discharge of Elderly from the Emergency Department—The DEED II Study , 2004, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[7]  T. Bodenheimer,et al.  Can health care teams improve primary care practice? , 2004, JAMA.

[8]  M. Coleman,et al.  Survival of cancer patients in europe—The EUROCARE study , 1995, Cancer Causes & Control.

[9]  Richard Smith Is the NHS getting better or worse? , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  H. Jefferies,et al.  Multidisciplinary team working: is it both holistic and effective? , 2003, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[11]  J. Dawson,et al.  Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  F. Breedveld,et al.  Cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis of multidisciplinary care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised comparison of clinical nurse specialist care, inpatient team care, and day patient team care , 2003, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[13]  A. Zwinderman,et al.  A randomized comparison of care provided by a clinical nurse specialist, an inpatient team, and a day patient team in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2002, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[14]  J. Savage,et al.  Participant observation, informed consent and ethical approval. , 2002, Nurse researcher.

[15]  Rosaline S Barbour,et al.  Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  E. Conant,et al.  The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management , 2001, Cancer.

[17]  P. Armstrong,et al.  A systematic review of randomized trials of disease management programs in heart failure. , 2001, The American journal of medicine.

[18]  J Molyneux,et al.  Interprofessional teamworking: what makes teams work well? , 2001, Journal of interprofessional care.

[19]  J Savage,et al.  Ethnography and health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  C. Pope,et al.  Assessing quality in qualitative research , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  L. Green Using evidence-based medicine in clinical practice. , 1998, Primary care.

[22]  J. Popay,et al.  Rationale and Standards for the Systematic Review of Qualitative Literature in Health Services Research , 1998, Qualitative health research.

[23]  M. Whitehouse,et al.  A policy framework for commissioning cancer services , 1995, BMJ.

[24]  T. Butterworth Working in partnership: a collaborative approach to care. The review of mental health nursing. , 1994, Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing.

[25]  R. Hugman Power in caring professions , 1991 .

[26]  S. Fagerhaugh,et al.  Participant Observation , 1979 .

[27]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[28]  M. Lesser,et al.  Nurse-Patient Relationships in a Hospital Maternity Service , 1956 .