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
. 2023 May 18:13:1178165.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1178165. eCollection 2023.

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings

Janneke E W Walraven  1   2 , Rob H A Verhoeven  2   3 , Jacobus J M van der Hoeven  1 , Renske van der Meulen  1 , Valery E P P Lemmens  2 , Gijs Hesselink  4 , Ingrid M E Desar  1
Affiliations

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings

Janneke E W Walraven et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Introduction: Nowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed.

Results: Thirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice.

Conclusion: To make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Keywords: computerized clinical decision support systems; multidisciplinary team meeting; oncology; oncology care; streamlining.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Horlait M, Baes S, De Regge M, Leys M. Understanding the complexity, underlying processes, and influencing factors for optimal multidisciplinary teamwork in hospital-based cancer teams: a systematic integrative review. Cancer nursing (2021) 44(6):E476–e92. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000923 - DOI - PubMed
    1. El Saghir NS, Keating NL, Carlson RW, Khoury KE, Fallowfield L. Tumor boards: optimizing the structure and improving efficiency of multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer worldwide. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ book Am Soc Clin Oncol Meeting (2014), e461–6. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2014.34.e461 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ottevanger N, Hilbink M, Weenk M, Janssen R, Vrijmoeth T, de Vries A, et al. . Oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings: evaluation of quality criteria. J Eval Clin practice (2013) 19(6):1035–43. doi: 10.1111/jep.12022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H, Corcoran N, Tran B, Bowden P, et al. . The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev (2016) 42:56–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kočo L, Weekenstroo HHA, Lambregts DMJ, Sedelaar JPM, Prokop M, Fütterer JJ, et al. . The effects of multidisciplinary team meetings on clinical practice for colorectal, lung, prostate and breast cancer: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel) (2021) 13(16):4159. doi: 10.3390/cancers13164159 - DOI - PMC - PubMed