Implementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review.

The healthcare industry compares unfavorably with other ultra-safe industries such as aviation and nuclear power plants, which address complexity by reducing the vulnerability of a single person and promoting teams and strong systems. A multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is an evidence-based organizational approach to implementing a more effective concept in oncology practice. Studies addressing the correlation between MTBs and cancer outcomes show promising results, and other potential benefits are also addressed. The objectives of this article are to define and characterize MTBs in modern oncology practice, review the current literature on MTBs effectiveness and address challenges to the implementation and maintenance of MTBs. In this commentary-type narrative review, the authors present their opinions and, whenever possible, substantiate recommendations by citing supportive literature.

Lay abstract Compared with other ultra-safe industries such as aviation and nuclear power plants, the healthcare industry operates with lower safety standards. Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are regular meetings of various specialist doctors and other health professionals involved in cancer care to discuss cases of patients with cancer. MTBs are considered valuable tools to promote the quality of care in oncology by reducing the vulnerability of a single person and promoting teams and strong systems. Studies have shown that MTBs correlate with better treatment results, and other potential benefits are also addressed. The objectives of this paper are to define and characterize MTBs in modern oncology practice, review the current literature on MTBs and address challenges to the implementation and maintenance of MTBs. The authors substantiate their views with literature citations where possible.

Cross-Cultural Validity Study of a Medical Education Leadership Competencies Instrument in Latin American Physicians: A Multinational Study.

PURPOSE: Physicians rarely receive formal training in leadership skills. Çitaku and colleagues have identified a set of leadership competencies (LCs) providing validity evidence in North American (NA) and European Union (EU) medical education institutions. We aim to apply this same survey to a sample of Latin American (LA) medical leaders from the oncology community and related areas, compare the results with those of the previous survey, and perform subgroup analyses within the LA cohort. METHODS: The survey was sent to nearly 8,000 physicians of participating professional organizations. In addition to the 63 questions, we also collected data on the type of institution, country, specialty, sex, age, years of experience in oncology, and leadership position. RESULTS: The 217 LA respondents placed the highest value on task management competencies (91.37% reported these as important or very important v 87.0% of NA/EU respondents; P < .0001), followed by self-management (87.45% of LA respondents v 87.55% of NA/EU respondents; P = not significant [NS]), social responsibility (86.83% of LA respondents v 87.48% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), innovation (86.69% of LA respondents v 85.31% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), and leading others (83.31% of LA respondents v 84.71% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS). Social responsibility, which was first in importance in the NA/EU survey, was only third in the LA survey. Subgroup analyses showed significant variations in the ratings of specific LCs within the LA population. CONCLUSION: LCs valued by LA leaders somewhat differ from those valued by their NA and EU counterparts, implying that cultural aspects might influence the perception of desired LCs. We also detected variations in the responses within the LA population. Our data indicate that current physician leadership training programs should be tailored to suit specific needs and cultural aspects of each region. Further validity studies of this instrument with other samples and cultures are warranted.

Leadership competencies for medical education and healthcare professions: population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and empirically investigate the dimensions of leadership in medical education and healthcare professions. DESIGN: A population-based design with a focus group and a survey were used to identify the perceived competencies for effective leadership in medical education. SETTING: The focus group, consisting of five experts from three countries (Austria n=1; Germany n=2; Switzerland n=2), was conducted (all masters of medical education), and the survey was sent to health professionals from medical schools and teaching hospitals in six countries (Austria, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, the UK and the USA). PARTICIPANTS: The participants were educators, physicians, nurses and other health professionals who held academic positions in medical education. A total of 229 completed the survey: 135 (59.0%) women (mean age=50.3 years) and 94 (41.0%) men (mean age=51.0 years). MEASURES: A 63-item survey measuring leadership competencies was developed and administered via electronic mail to participants. RESULTS: Exploratory principal component analyses yielded five factors accounting for 51.2% of the variance: (1) social responsibility, (2) innovation, (3) self-management, (4) task management and (5) justice orientation. There were significant differences between physicians and other health professionals on some factors (Wilk's λ=0.93, p<0.01). Social responsibility was rated higher by other health professionals (M=71.09) than by physicians (M=67.12), as was innovation (health professionals M=80.83; physicians M=76.20) and justice orientation (health professionals M=21.27; physicians M=20.46). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the principal component analyses support the theoretical meaningfulness of these factors, their coherence, internal consistency and parsimony in explaining the variance of the data. Although there are some between-group differences, the competencies appear to be stable and coherent.