Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers’ Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of the Sample (n=30 Providers)

	All Providers (n=30)	Providers with Experiences (n=16)	Providers without Experiences (n=14)
Gender
Women	19 (63.3%)	11 (68.8%)	8 (57.1%)
Men	11 (36.7%)	5 (31.2%)	6 (42.9%)
Age (years)
Range	25–61	39–61	25–60
Mean	49	51	46
Categories
25–37	3 (10%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (21.4%)
38–49	10 (33.3%)	7 (43.8%)	3 (21.4%)
50–61	16 (53.3%)	9 (56.2%)	7 (50.0%)
Missing	1 (3.3%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (7.1%)
Profession
Gynecologist	12 (40.0%)	6 (37.5%)	6 (42.9%)
Breast Care Nurse	4 (13.3%)	3 (18.8%)	1 (7.1%)
Radiation Oncologist	4 (13.3%)	3 (18.8%)	1 (7.1%)
Psycho-Oncologist	4 (13.3%)	2 (12.5%)	2 (14.3%)
Oncologist	2 (6.7%)	1 (6.3%)	1 (7.1%)
Pathologist	1 (3.3%)	1 (6.3%)	0 (0.0%)
Quality Manager	1 (3.3%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (7.1%)
Diet-Assistant	1 (3.3%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (7.1%)
MTC Documentarist	1 (3.3%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (7.1%)
Professional experience (years)	<1–38	7–33	<1–38
Frequency of MTC participation per month
Range	1–20	<1–20	1–4
Mean	4	5	3
Time of MTC experience (years)
Range	<1–20	2–20	<1–14
Mean	8.8	10.0	7.3

Table 2 Characteristic Quotes of the Providers

	Barriers	Benefits
Providers’ expectations	Well, the main argument is actually the time factor. And the related organizational EFFORT. (–) (I: Yes.) (–) Yes, and, um, I believe, (-) when talking with colleagues WITHOUT the patient (-) we talk, (—) well, not more OPENLY, but (-) ARE maybe a little less focused on our choice of words, than WOULD be the case if the patient were present.	I would definitely, um, well, see it as an advantage because the patient could also contribute and have a say (I: Yes.) or ask why (I: Yes.) is that the best decision now, right? Or if he has arguments, um (-) that he has a TOTALLY different opinion, that he could definitely, um, talk about that with the physicians there.
	And (-) well, that is sometimes difficult with the foreign words and with the SPEED at which patients are discussed, too. (-) So that is the question, whether the patient, um, gains anything from that, or even understands any of it? (I: Yes.)	But for patients who, um, (-), well, are take a lot of responsibility for their own health and want to know as much as possible, for them, it’s certainly of benefit.
	Negative experiences	Positive experiences
Providers’ experiences	But also, they OFTEN said, it’s like you are sitting at a tribunal (I: Yes.) and receive your sentence.	So, as I said, ultimately, that tends to be the exception. As an offer, I think, it’s important, for the patient to theoretically have this, um, option [...] AND I believe the ad ... /the advantage, um, is that the patient is simply involved in the treatment decision, feels taken SERIOUSLY and maybe simply sees how seriously we take him and, well, um, the CASE. And that it’s not simply one person alone DECIDING, but that it’s really a group decision, which might give him piece of mind, too. AND, um, they, as a result also get the feeling that they are taking over the reins again themselves. Right, it’s not us deciding what they will do, but they decide what we SHOULD do. (I: Yes, yes, yes.)
	And, um, then you just notice that your colleagues generally are more cautious in the discussion. (-) Right, and (-) often, you then might postpone decisions, or you tell patients [...] that this might be discussed in detail directly with the specific physician.	One thing is, I get to know/see (-) the physicians who in some way have to do with my (-) case. AND I, um, might find out um (-) my recommendation a few days BEFORE, that is, EXACTLY at the time when the decision is made (I: Yes.) and not only at the time when the, um, the, um, detailed consultation is scheduled. In case of any questions, she can also directly ask the other partners. Some things (-) can be clarified very directly. They are usually simple things, well/or simple things TO US, right?