Degrees of Multidisciplinarity Underpinning Care Planning for Patients with Cancer in Weekly Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Conversation Analysis

References

• Department of Health. Manual for Cancer Services. London, UK; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• National Cancer Action Team. The Characteristics of an Effective Multidisciplinary Team (MDT). London, UK: National Cancer Action Team; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Cancer Research UK. Improving the Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Services. London, UK: Cancer Research UK; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• The Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services. A Report by the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. London, UK: Department of Health and Social Care; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World cancer report. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Eaker S, Dickman PW, Hellstrom V, et al. Regional differences in breast cancer survival despite common guidelines. Cancer Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(12):2914–2918. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horlait M, Baes S, Dhaene S, Van Belle S, Leys M. How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care? An observational study in oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:159–167. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S196660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dane A, Schnieder B. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev. 1998;18:22–45. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, et al. A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behaviour research. J Consult Clin Psycho. 2005;73(5):852–860. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.852
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soukup T, Lamb BW, Arora S, Darzi A, Sevdalis N, Green JSA. Successful strategies in implementing multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018;11:49–61. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S117945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2116–2125. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1675-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Benn J, et al. Multidisciplinary cancer team meeting structure and treatment decisions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(3):715–722. doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2691-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raine R, Xanthopoulou P, Wallace I, et al. Determinants of treatment plan implementation in multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:867–876. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-002818
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalil R, Ahmed M, Green JS, et al. Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams. J Surg. 2013;11:389–394.
   Google Scholar
• Soukup T, Lamb BW, Sarkar S, et al. Predictors of treatment decisions in multidisciplinary oncology meetings. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:4410–4417. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5347-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soukup T, Petrides KV, Lamb BW, et al. The anatomy of clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer meetings. Medicine. 2016;95:e3885. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000003885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandamihardja TAK, Soukup T, McInerney S, et al. Analyzing breast cancer multidisciplinary patient management. World J Surg. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Soukup T, Gandamihardja TAK, McInerney S, et al. Do multidisciplinary cancer care teams suffer decision-making fatigue: an observational, longitudinal team improvement study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e027303. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora S, Sevdalis N, Tam C, et al. Systematic evaluation of decision-making in multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(5):459. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2012.02.009
   Google Scholar
• Stairmand J, Signal L, Sarfati D, et al. Consideration of comorbidity in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1325–1332. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs. Institute of Medicine; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Fosker CJ. The cost of the MDT. Br Med J. 2010;340:c951.
   Google Scholar
• Aragon MJ, Casterlli A, Gaughan J. Hospital Trusts productivity in the English NHS. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mistry M, Parkin DM, Ahmad AS, et al. Cancer incidence in the UK. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1795–1803. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• England NHS. Everyone Counts: Planning for Patients 2014/2015 to 2018/2019. England, UK: NHS England; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Barraclough K. New NICE guidance on referral for cancer. Br Med J. 2015;351:h3640. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapur N, Parand A, Soukup T, et al. Aviation and healthcare: a comparative review with implications for patient safety. JRSM Open. 2015;7(1):2054270415616548.
   Google Scholar
• Civil Aviation Authority. Intelligence, Strategy and Policy: Flight-Crew Human Factors Handbook. Civil Aviation Authority; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health. 2004;13:85–i90. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.010033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY. To err is human, to correct for it divine: A meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making. Small Group Res. 2001;32:313. doi:10.1177/104649640103200303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chahine S, Cristancho S, Pdgett J, et al. How do small groups make decisions? A theoretical framework to inform the implementation and study of clinical committees. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(3):192–198. doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0357-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flottorp SA, Jamtvedt G, Gibis B, et al. Using Audit and Feedback to Health Professionals to Improve the Quality and Safety of Health Care. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gurtner A, et al. Explicit reasoning confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: A simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Res. 2009;40(3):271–300. doi:10.1177/1046496409332928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• STROBE statement: strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology. Available from https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home.
   Google Scholar
• von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344 349.
   Google Scholar
• Soukup T. Socio-Cognitive Factors That Affect Decision-Making in Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings [Phd Thesis; Clinical Medicine Research]. London, UK: Imperial College London; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson G. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH, editor. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (Pp.13–31). John Benjamins Pub Co; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Ten Haves P. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. SAGE; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Dew K. Purifying and hybridising categories in healthcare decision-making: the clinic, the home, and the multidisciplinary team meeting. Health Soc Rev. 2016;25:142–156. doi:10.1080/14461242.2016.1167620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrelli B. The assessment, monitoring and enhancement of fidelity in public health clinical trials. J Public Health Den. 2011;71:52–63. doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soukup T Conversation analysis of three cancer teams dataset. Zenodo; 2017. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/582283#.Xm_KlKj7Q2w.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth DR. Group Dynamics. US: Jon-David Hague; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Improvement. Evidence from NHS Improvement on Clinical Staff Shortages: A Workforce Analysis. London, UK: NHS Improvement; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Soukup T, Morbi A, Lamb BW, et al. A measure of case complexity for streamlining workflow in cancer multidisciplinary tumor boards: mixed methods development and early validation of the MeDiC tool. Ca Medicine. 2020;9(14):5143–5154.
   Google Scholar
• Soukup T, Lamb B, Sevdalis N, Green JSA. Streamlining cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: challenges and solutions. Br J Hosp Med. 2020;81:1–6. doi:10.12968/hmed.2020.0024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHS England and NHS Improvement. Streamlining Multi-Disciplinary Team Meetings: Guidance for Cancer Alliances. London, UK: NHS England and NHS Improvement; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Kee F, Owen T, Leathem R. Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team? J Epidemiol. Community Health (Bristol). 2007;61(4):308–313.
   Google Scholar
• Independent Cancer Taskforce. Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: A Strategy for England 2015–2020. London, UK: Independent Cancer Task Force; 2015.
   Google Scholar