Validation of Team Performance Assessment of Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Sep 2014Validation of Team Performance Assessment of Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards Rozh Jalil, Waseem Akhter, Benjamin W. Lamb, Cath Taylor, Jenny Harris, James S.A. Green, and Nick Sevdalis Rozh JalilRozh Jalil Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom , Waseem AkhterWaseem Akhter Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom , Benjamin W. LambBenjamin W. Lamb Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, London, United Kingdom , Cath TaylorCath Taylor King's College London, London, United Kingdom , Jenny HarrisJenny Harris King's College London, London, United Kingdom , James S.A. GreenJames S.A. Green Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care, London Southbank University, London, United Kingdom , and Nick SevdalisNick Sevdalis Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.002AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We construct validated the instrument to evaluate assessor learning curves and the feasibility and interrater reliability of MTB-MODe for assessing the decision making process using video recorded multidisciplinary tumor board meetings. Materials and Methods: Multidisciplinary tumor boards are becoming standard practice for managing cancer internationally but no standards have been agreed on to assess the efficacy of such teams. The MTB-MODe tool assesses the process of multidisciplinary tumor board decision making by standardized observation (1 to 5 anchored scales) of the quality of information presented at the multidisciplinary tumor board as well as board member contributions to the case review. We assessed 683 multidisciplinary tumor board case discussions using MTB-MODe in a multiphase study, including 332 cases (9 urology boards) by 1 urologist in vivo and 224 cases (6 urology boards) by 2 urologists in vivo. The instrument was refined and subsequently used to rate 127 video recorded case discussions (5 tumor types) by a total of 8 multidisciplinary tumor boards. Results: Good interrater reliability was achieved in vivo and at the video recorded multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (ICC ≥0.70). MTB-MODe scores were higher in cases that resulted in a decision than in cases in which no decision was made (mean ± SD 2.54 ± 0.47 vs 2.02 ± 0.65, p ≤0.001). Conclusions: A standardized method to assess the quality of multidisciplinary tumor board discussions can enhance the quality of cancer care and the ability of the boards to self-evaluate performance, thus, promoting good practice. Video recordings offer a feasible, reliable method of assessing how multidisciplinary tumor boards work. References 1 : Multidisciplinary approach to the management of breast cancer in Hong Kong. World J Surg2006; 30: 2095. Google Scholar 2 : Optimising cancer care in Australia. Aust Fam Physician2003; 32: 369. Google Scholar 3 : Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence?. BMJ2010; 340: c951. Google Scholar 4 : Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: identifying opportunities to promote implementation. Ann Surg Oncol2009; 16: 2731. Google Scholar 5 Manual for Cancer Services 2004. London: Department of Health2004. Google Scholar 6 : A Plan for Investment, a Plan for Reform. London: Department of Health2000. Google Scholar 7 : The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer2001; 91: 1231. Google Scholar 8 : Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?. Lancet Oncol2006; 7: 935. Google Scholar 9 : Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women. BMJ2012; 344: e2718. Google Scholar 10 : Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review. J Surg Oncol2010; 102: 125. Google Scholar 11 : Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol2006; 17: 457. Google Scholar 12 : Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective. Int J Surg2013; 11: 389. Google Scholar 13 : The brain tumor board: lessons to be learned from an interdisciplinary conference. Onkologie2005; 28: 22. Google Scholar 14 : Quality assessment of a multidisciplinary tumour meeting for patients with head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol2007; 127: 82. Google Scholar 15 : Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol2011; 18: 2116. Google Scholar 16 : Influences on multidisciplinary team decision-making. Int J Gynecol Cancer2008; 18: 215. Google Scholar 17 : The impact of nontechnical skills on technical performance in surgery: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg2012; 214: 214. Google Scholar 18 : Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg2004; 239: 475. Google Scholar 19 : Quality improvement in multidisciplinary cancer teams: an investigation of teamwork and clinical decision-making and cross-validation of assessments. Ann Surg Oncol2011; 18: 3535. Google Scholar 20 : Teamwork and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational assessment tool. BMJ Qual Saf2011; 20: 849. Google Scholar 21 : Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull1979; 86: 420. Google Scholar 22 : Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: feasibility of clinical and nonclinical assessor calibration with short-term training. Ann Surg2012; 255: 804. Google Scholar 23 : Teamwork and team decision-making at multidisciplinary cancer conferences: barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for improvement. World J Surg2011; 35: 1970. Google Scholar 24 : Costs of multidisciplinary teams in cancer are small in relation to benefits. BMJ2012; 344: e3700. Google Scholar 25 : Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2003; 3: CD000259. Google Scholar 26 : Improving decision making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: prospective longitudinal evaluation of a multicomponent intervention for 1,421 patients. J Am Coll Surg2013; 217: 412. Google Scholar © 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byNielsen M (2018) The Legacy of Ernest A. Codman in the 21st CenturyJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 3, (642-644), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014. Volume 192Issue 3September 2014Page: 891-898 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsquality assuranceinterdisciplinary communicationneoplasmshealth carevideo recordingurologyAcknowledgmentsCarol Wood, MTB Coordinator, Whipps Cross University Hospital provided meeting minutes. Poonam Gohil provided research assistance.MetricsAuthor Information Rozh Jalil Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Waseem Akhter Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Benjamin W. Lamb Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Cath Taylor King's College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Jenny Harris King's College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author James S.A. Green Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care, London Southbank University, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Nick Sevdalis Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...