Using peer observers to assess the quality of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative proof of concept study

References

• TaylorCMunroAJGlynne-JonesRMultidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence?BMJ2010340c95120332315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JalilRAkhterWLambBWValidation of team performance assessment for multidisciplinary tumor boardsJ Urol3112014 [Epub ahead of print.]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TaylorCShewbridgeAHarrisJGreenJSBenefits of multidisciplinary team work in the management of breast cancerBreast Cancer20135798524648761
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• RohanEBauschJClimbing Everest: oncology work as an expedition in caringJ Psychosoc Oncol2009278411819197680
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KerstenCCvancarovaMMjalandSDoes in house availability of multidisciplinary teams increase survival in upper gastrointestinal cancer?World J Gastrointest Oncol20135606723671732
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KessonEMAllardiceGMGeorgeWDBurnsHJMorrisonDSEffects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 womenBMJ2012344e271822539013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GomellaLGJianqingLHoffman-CensitsJEnhancing prostate cancer care through the multidisciplinary clinic approach: a 15-year experienceJ Oncol Pract20106e5e1021358951
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EakerSDickamPHellstromVZackMMAhlqrenJHolmbergLRegional differences in breast cancer survival despite common guidelinesCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2005142914291816365009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HawardRAmirZBorrillCBreast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectivenessBr J Cancer200389152212838294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LambBWSevdalisNAroraSPintoAVincentCGreenJSTeamwork and team decision-making at multi-disciplinary cancer conferences: barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for improvementWorld J Surg2011351970197621604049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cancer Action TeamNational Peer Review Programme. Report 2011/2012: An overview of the findings from the 2011/2012 National Cancer Peer Review of cancer service in EnglandLondon, UKNational Cancer Action Team2012 Available from: http://www.cquins.nhs.uk/?menu=infoAccessed March 28, 2014
   Google Scholar
• LanceleyASavageJMenonUJacobsIInfluences on multidisciplinary team decision-makingInt J Gynecol Cancer20081821522217511801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RowlandSCallenJA qualitative analysis of communication between members of a hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer teamEur J Cancer Care2013222231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BlazebyJMWilsonLMetcalfeCNicklinJEnglishRDonovanJLAnalysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teamsAnn Oncol20061745746016322114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EnglishRMetcalfeCDayJRayterZBlazebyJMBreast Cancer Multi-Disciplinary TeamA prospective analysis of implementation of multi-disciplinary team decisions in breast cancerBreast J201218456463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LambBBrownKFNagpalKVincentCGreenJSSevdalisNQuality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic reviewAnn Surg Oncol2011182116212521442345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goolam-HoosenTMetcalfeCCameronARocosBFalkSBlazebyJMWaiting times for cancer treatment: the impact of multidisciplinary team meetingsBehav Inf Technol200430467471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeoFVenissacNPoudenxMOttoJMourouxJGroupe d’Oncologie Thoracique AzuréenMultidisciplinary management of lung cancer: how to test its efficacy?J Thorac Oncol20072697217410013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De IesoPBCowardJILetsaIA study of the decision outcomes and financial costs of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) in oncologyBr J Cancer20131092295230024084764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KidgerJMurdochJDonovanJLBlazebyJMClinical decision-making in a multidisciplinary gynaecological cancer team: a qualitative studyBJOG200311651151719250362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LambBSevdalisNMostafidHVincentCGreenJSQuality improvement in multidisciplinary cancer teams: an investigation of teamwork and clinical decision-making and cross-validation of assessmentsAnn Surg Oncol2011183535354321594706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UdreSKoutantjiMSevdalisNMultidisciplinary crisis simulations: the way forward for training surgical teamsWorld J Surg2007311843185317610109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FletcherGFlinRMcGeorgePAnaesthetists’ non-technical skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker systemBr J Anaesth20039058058812697584
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LambBWongHWVincentCGreenJSSevdalisNTeamwork and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational toolBMJ Qual Saf201110849856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TaylorCAtkinsLRichardsonMTarrantRRamirezAJMeasuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approachBMC Cancer20121220222642614
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DavysDJonesVPeer observation: a tool for continuing professional developmentInt J Ther Rehabil200714489493
   Google Scholar
• HogstonREvaluating the quality of nursing care through peer review and reflection; the findings of a qualitative studyInt J Nurs Stud1995321621617790156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cancer Action TeamCharacteristics of an Effective MDTLondon, UKNational Cancer Action Team2010 Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130513211237/http://www.ncat.nhs.uk/Accessed March 28, 2014
   Google Scholar
• TaylorCBrownKLambBHarrisJSevdalisNGreenJSDeveloping and testing TEAM (Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure), a self-assessment tool to improve cancer multidisciplinary teamworkAnn Surg Oncol2012194019402722820934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NeuendorfKAThe Content Analysis GuidebookThousand Oaks, CA, USASage Publications Inc2002
   Google Scholar
• HullLEAroraSSymonsNRTraining faculty in non-technical skills assessment: national guidelines on program requirementsAnn Surg201325837037523222032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FitzpatrickRBoultonMQualitative methods for assessing health careQual Health Care1994310711310137583
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CaldwellKAtwalANon-participant observation: using video tapes to collect data in nursing researchNurse Res200513425416416979
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BradburnNMSudmanSWansinkBAsking Questions The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design for Market Research, Political Polls and Social and Health QuestionnairesSan Francisco, CA, USAJossey-Bass2004
   Google Scholar
• LissitzRWGreenSBThe effect of the number of scale points on reliability: a Monte Carlo approachJ Appl Psychol1975601013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NormanGLikert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statisticsAdv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract20101562563220146096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IversNJamtvedtGFlottorpSAudit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomesCochrane Database Syst Rev20126CD00025922696318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar