The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach

Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach
Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach
Background. Cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are established in many countries but little is known about how well they function. A core activity is regular MDT meetings (MDMs) where treatment recommendations are agreed. A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted to develop and test quality criteria for observational assessment of MDM performance calibrated against consensus from over 2000 MDT members about the "characteristics of an effective MDT".

Methods. Eighteen of the 86 'Characteristics of Effective MDTs' were considered relevant and feasible to observe. They collated to 15 aspects of MDT working covering four domains: the team (e.g. attendance, chairing, teamworking); infrastructure for meetings (venue, equipment); meeting organisation and logistics; and patient-centred clinical decision-making (patient-centredness, clarity of recommendations). Criteria for rating each characteristic from 'very poor' to 'very good' were derived from literature review, observing MDMs and expert input. Criteria were applied to 10 bowel cancer MDTs to assess acceptability and measure variation between and within teams. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing three observers.

Results. Observational assessment was acceptable to teams and feasible to implement. Total scores from 29 to 50 (out of 59) highlighted wide diversity in quality between teams. Eight teams were rated either 'very good/good' or 'very poor/poor' for at least three domains demonstrating some internal consistency. 'Very Good' ratings were most likely for attendance and administrative preparation, and least likely for patient-centredness of decision-making and prioritisation of complex cases. All except two characteristics had intra-class correlations of [greater than or equal to]0.50.

Conclusions. This observational tool (MDT-OARS) may contribute to the assessment of MDT performance. Further testing to confirm validity and reliability is required.
1471-2407
202
Taylor, Cath
9516d655-6e7c-4310-b1e9-e916d1b9de4e
Atkins, Louise
5e0e7b1f-e3da-4b50-a26f-3eaa5f5c9b34
Richardson, Alison
3db30680-aa47-43a5-b54d-62d10ece17b7
Tarrant, Ruth
2403b34d-7f03-49ec-9810-5ee3bc667eb7
Ramirez, Amanda J
38babcbd-054c-4ef6-a108-1c2cec73d694
Taylor, Cath
9516d655-6e7c-4310-b1e9-e916d1b9de4e
Atkins, Louise
5e0e7b1f-e3da-4b50-a26f-3eaa5f5c9b34
Richardson, Alison
3db30680-aa47-43a5-b54d-62d10ece17b7
Tarrant, Ruth
2403b34d-7f03-49ec-9810-5ee3bc667eb7
Ramirez, Amanda J
38babcbd-054c-4ef6-a108-1c2cec73d694

Taylor, Cath, Atkins, Louise, Richardson, Alison, Tarrant, Ruth and Ramirez, Amanda J (2012) Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach. BMC cancer, 12, 202. (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-202). (PMID:22642614)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background. Cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are established in many countries but little is known about how well they function. A core activity is regular MDT meetings (MDMs) where treatment recommendations are agreed. A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted to develop and test quality criteria for observational assessment of MDM performance calibrated against consensus from over 2000 MDT members about the "characteristics of an effective MDT".

Methods. Eighteen of the 86 'Characteristics of Effective MDTs' were considered relevant and feasible to observe. They collated to 15 aspects of MDT working covering four domains: the team (e.g. attendance, chairing, teamworking); infrastructure for meetings (venue, equipment); meeting organisation and logistics; and patient-centred clinical decision-making (patient-centredness, clarity of recommendations). Criteria for rating each characteristic from 'very poor' to 'very good' were derived from literature review, observing MDMs and expert input. Criteria were applied to 10 bowel cancer MDTs to assess acceptability and measure variation between and within teams. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing three observers.

Results. Observational assessment was acceptable to teams and feasible to implement. Total scores from 29 to 50 (out of 59) highlighted wide diversity in quality between teams. Eight teams were rated either 'very good/good' or 'very poor/poor' for at least three domains demonstrating some internal consistency. 'Very Good' ratings were most likely for attendance and administrative preparation, and least likely for patient-centredness of decision-making and prioritisation of complex cases. All except two characteristics had intra-class correlations of [greater than or equal to]0.50.

Conclusions. This observational tool (MDT-OARS) may contribute to the assessment of MDT performance. Further testing to confirm validity and reliability is required.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 29 May 2012
Organisations: Faculty of Health Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 339920
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/339920
ISSN: 1471-2407
PURE UUID: 51a59b8b-96d4-4ee9-ba2e-14e6f8c4314a
ORCID for Alison Richardson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3127-5755

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Jun 2012 13:09
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Cath Taylor
Author: Louise Atkins
Author: Ruth Tarrant
Author: Amanda J Ramirez

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×