Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2016 Jul 21;6(7):e012559.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012559.

Multidisciplinary team decision-making in cancer and the absent patient: a qualitative study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Multidisciplinary team decision-making in cancer and the absent patient: a qualitative study

D W Hamilton et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To critically examine the process of multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making with a particular focus on patient involvement.

Design: Ethnographic study using direct non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

Setting: Three head and neck cancer centres in the north of England.

Participants: Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer and staff members who attend the head and neck cancer MDT.

Results: Individual members of the MDT often have a clear view of which treatment they consider to be 'best' in any clinical situation. When disagreement occurs, the MDT has to manage how it presents this difference of opinion to the patient. First, this is because the MDT members recognise that the clinician selected to present the treatment choice to the patient may 'frame' their description of the treatment options to fit their own view of best. Second, many MDT members feel that any disagreement and difference of opinion in the MDT meeting should be concealed from the patient. This leads to much of the work of decision-making occurring in the MDT meeting, thus excluding the patient. MDT members seek to counteract this by introducing increasing amounts of information about the patient into the MDT meeting, thus creating an 'evidential patient'. Often, only highly selected or very limited information of this type can be available or known and it can easily be selectively reported in order to steer the discussion in a particular direction.

Conclusions: The process of MDT decision-making presents significant barriers to effective patient involvement. If patients are to be effectively involved in cancer decision-making, the process of MDT decision-making needs substantial review.

Keywords: ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart. *MDT meeting between staff members: patient is discussed, imaging and pathology reviewed, but patient is not present. +Clinic appointment between some members of the MDT and the patient, where treatment decision is made. MDT, multidisciplinary team.

References

    1. European Partnership Action Against Cancer consensus group Borras JM, Albreht T, Audisio R et al. . Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care. Eur J Cancer 2014;50: 475–80. 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.11.012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Calman KC, Hine D. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services. Department of Health, 1995. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morris J. Regional variation in the surgical treatment of early breast cancer. Br J Surg 1992;79:1312–13. 10.1002/bjs.1800791223 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harries SA, Lawrence RN, Scrivener R et al. . A survey of the management of breast cancer in England and Wales. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1996;78:197–202. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sainsbury R, Haward B, Rider L et al. . Influence of clinician workload and patterns of treatment on survival from breast cancer. Lancet 1995;345:1265–70. 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90924-9 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types