Benefits and drawbacks of videoconferencing for collaborating multidisciplinary teams in regional oncology networks: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Various forms of videoconferenced collaborations exist in oncology care. In regional oncology networks, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are essential in coordinating care in their region. There is no recent overview of the benefits and drawbacks of videoconferenced collaborations in oncology care networks. This scoping review presents an overview of videoconferencing (VC) in oncology care and summarises its benefits and drawbacks regarding decision-making and care coordination. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (nursing and allied health) and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020 for studies that included VC use in discussing treatment plans and coordinating care in oncology networks between teams at different sites. Two reviewers performed data extraction and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Fifty studies were included. Six types of collaboration between teams using VC in oncology care were distinguished, ranging from MDTs collaborating with similar teams or with national or international experts to interactions between palliative care nurses and experts in that field. Patient benefits were less travel for diagnosis, better coordination of care, better access to scarce facilities and treatment in their own community. Benefits for healthcare professionals were optimised treatment plans through multidisciplinary discussion of complex cases, an ability to inform all healthcare professionals simultaneously, enhanced care coordination, less travel and continued medical education. VC added to the regular workload in preparing for discussions and increased administrative preparation. DISCUSSION: Benefits and drawbacks for collaborating teams were tied to general VC use. VC enabled better use of staff time and reduced the time spent travelling. VC equipment costs and lack of reimbursement were implementation barriers. CONCLUSION: VC is highly useful for various types of collaboration in oncology networks and improves decision-making over treatment plans and care coordination, with substantial benefits for patients and specialists. Drawbacks are additional time related to administrative preparation.

Reorganizing the Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in a Tertiary Centre for Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Adds Value to the Internal and Regional Care Pathways. A Mixed Method Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The reorganisation of the structure of a Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (GIO-MDTM) in a tertiary centre with three care pathways is evaluated on added value. METHODS: In a mixed method investigation, process indicators such as throughput times were analysed and stakeholders were interviewed regarding benefits and drawbacks of the reorganisation and current MDTM functioning. RESULTS: For the hepatobiliary care pathway, the time to treatment plan increased, but the time to start treatment reduced significantly. The percentage of patients treated within the Dutch standard of 63 days increased for the three care pathways. From the interviews, three themes emerged: added value of MDTMs, focus on planning integrated care and awareness of possible improvements. DISCUSSION: The importance of evaluating interventions in oncology care pathways is shown, including detecting unexpected drawbacks. The evaluation provides insight into complex dynamics of the care pathways and contributes with recommendations on functioning of an MDTM. CONCLUSIONS: Throughput times are only partly determined by oncology care pathway management, but have influence on the functioning of MDTMs. Process indicator information can help to reflect on integration of care in the region, resulting in an increase of patients treated within the Dutch standard.

Does multidisciplinary videoconferencing between a head-and-neck cancer centre and its partner hospital add value to their patient care and decision-making? A mixed-method evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Given the difficulties in diagnosing and treating head-and-neck cancer, care is centralised in the Netherlands in eight head-and-neck cancer centres and six satellite regional hospitals as preferred partners. A requirement is that all patients of the partner should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) with the head-and-neck centre as part of a Dutch health policy rule. In this mixed-method study, we evaluate the value that the video-conferenced MDT adds to the MDTs in the care pathway, quantitative regarding recommendations given and qualitative in terms of benefits for the teams and the patient. DESIGN: A sequential mixed-method study. SETTING: One oncology centre and its partner in the Northern part of the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Head-and-neck cancer specialists presenting patient cases during video-conferenced MDT over a period of 6 months. Semistructured interviews held with six medical specialists, three from the centre and three from the partner. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of cases in which recommendations were given on diagnostic and/or therapeutic plans during video-conferenced MDT. RESULTS: In eight of the 336 patient cases presented (2%), specialists offered recommendations to the collaborating team (three given from centre to partner and five from partner to centre). Recommendations mainly consisted of alternative diagnostic modalities or treatment plans for a specific patient. Interviews revealed that specialists perceive added value in discussing complex cases because the other team offered a fresh perspective by hearing the case 'as new'. The teams recognise the importance of keeping their medical viewpoints aligned, but the requirement (that the partner should discuss all patients) was seen as outdated. CONCLUSIONS: The added value of the video-conferenced MDT is small considering patient care, but the specialists recognised that it is important to keep their medical viewpoints aligned and that their patients benefit from the discussions on complex cases.

Multidisciplinary first-day consultation accelerates diagnostic procedures and throughput times of patients in a head-and-neck cancer care pathway, a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancers are fast growing tumours that are complex to diagnose and treat. Multidisciplinary input into organization and logistics is critical to start treatment without delay. A multidisciplinary first-day consultation (MFDC) was introduced to reduce throughput times for patients suffering from head and neck cancer in the care pathway. In this mixed method study we evaluated the effects of introducing the MFDC on throughput times, number of patient hospital visits and compliance to the Dutch standard to start treatment within 30 calendar-days. METHODS: Data regarding 'days needed for referral', 'days needed for diagnostic procedures', 'days to start first treatment', and 'number of hospital visits' (process indicators) were retrieved from the medical records and analysed before and after implementation of the MFDC (before implementation: 2007 (n = 21), and after 2008 (n = 20), 2010 (n = 24) and 2013 (n = 24)). We used semi-structured interviews with medical specialists to explore a sample of outliers. RESULTS: Comparing 2007 and 2008 data (before and after MFDC implementation), days needed for diagnostic procedures and to start first treatment reduced with 8 days, the number of hospital visits reduced with 1.5 visit on average. The percentage of new patients treated within the Dutch standard of 30 calendar-days after intake increased from 52 to 83%. The reduction in days needed for diagnostic procedures was sustainable. Days needed to start treatment increased in 2013. Semi-structured interviews revealed that this delay could be attributed to new treatment modalities, patients needed more time to carefully consider their treatment options or professionals needed extra preparation time for organisation of more complex treatment due to early communication on diagnostic procedures to be performed. CONCLUSIONS: A MFDC is efficient and benefits patients. We showed that the MFDC implementation in the care pathway had a positive effect on efficiency in the care pathway. As a consequence, the extra efforts of four specialist disciplines, a nurse practitioner, and a coordinating nurse seeing the patient together during intake, were justified. Start treatment times increased as a result of new treatment modalities that needed more time for preparation.