Exploring non-physician care professionals' roles in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study.

The growing complexity of cancer care necessitates collaboration among different professionals. This interprofessional collaboration improves cancer care delivery and outcomes. Treatment decision-making within the context of a multidisciplinaire team meeting (MDTMs) may be seen as a particular form of interprofessional collaboration. Various studies on cancer MDTMs highlight a pattern of suboptimal information sharing between attendants. To overcome the lack of non-medical, patient-based information, it might be recommended that non-physician care professionals play a key patient advocacy role within cancer MDTMs. This study aims to explore non-physician care professionals' current and aspired role within cancer MDTMs. Additionally, the perceived hindering factors for these non-physician care professionals to fulfil their specific role are identified. The analysis focuses on nurses, specialist nurses, head nurses, psychologists, social workers, a head of social workers and data managers. The results show that non-physician care professionals play a limited role during case discussions in MDTMs. Neither do they actively participate in the decision-making process. Barriers perceived by non-physician care professionals are classified on two main levels: 1) team-related barriers (factors internally related to the team) and 2) external barriers (factors related to healthcare management and policy). A group of non-physician care professionals also belief that their information does not add value in the decision-making proces and as such, they underestimate their own role in MDTMs. To conclude, a change of culture is needed towards an interdisciplinary collaboration in which knowledge and expertise of different professions are equally assimilated into an integrated perspective to guarantee a true patient-centred approach for cancer MDTMs.

Understanding the Complexity, Underlying Processes, and Influencing Factors for Optimal Multidisciplinary Teamwork in Hospital-Based Cancer Teams: A Systematic Integrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary teamwork has become the standard in care for oncological patients and their treatment trajectory when comprehensive, holistic, and high-quality cancer care is needed. Working together from a variety of perspectives is difficult to achieve and has well-known pitfalls, such as miscommunication and poor coordination. OBJECTIVE: To describe and synthesize the factors influencing and the processes underlying optimal multidisciplinary teamwork. METHODS: An integrative review was conducted, guided by the framework of Whittemore and Knafl. The systematic search for literature published since 2010 in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) yielded 49 articles. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of the included studies focus on multidisciplinary team meetings, rather than on the wider notion of multidisciplinary teamwork. We identified influencing factors on the basis of structural features of the team, hospital, and health system, as well as process features of multidisciplinary teamwork in multidisciplinary team meetings. CONCLUSION: To improve multidisciplinary teamwork, the focus needs to be on the process of collaboration throughout the cancer care trajectory of the patient. A more integrated, interdisciplinary approach should be aimed for to recognize the role and contribution of all disciplines involved. IMPLICATIONS: A cultural change is needed toward interdisciplinary practice in hospitals to reach partnership between all involved professionals as part of a participatory, collaborative, and coordinated approach.

Neonatologists and neonatal nurses have positive attitudes towards perinatal end-of-life decisions, a nationwide survey.

AIM: Perinatal death is often preceded by an end-of-life decision (ELD). Disparate hospital policies, complex legal frameworks and ethically difficult cases make attitudes important. This study investigated attitudes of neonatologists and nurses towards perinatal ELDs. METHODS: A survey was handed out to all neonatologists and neonatal nurses in all eight neonatal intensive care units in Flanders, Belgium in May 2017. Respondents indicated agreement with statements regarding perinatal ELDs on a Likert-scale and sent back questionnaires via mail. RESULTS: The response rate was 49.5% (302/610). Most neonatologists and nurses found nontreatment decisions such as withholding or withdrawing treatment acceptable (90-100%). Termination of pregnancy when the foetus is viable in cases of severe or lethal foetal problems was considered highly acceptable in both groups (80-98%). Physicians and nurses do not find different ELDs equally acceptable, e.g. nurses more often than physicians (74% vs 60%, p = 0.017) agree that it is acceptable in certain cases to administer medication with the explicit intention of hastening death. CONCLUSION: There was considerable support for both prenatal and neonatal ELDs, even for decisions that currently fall outside the Belgian legal framework. Differences between neonatologists' and nurses' attitudes indicate that both opinions should be heard during ELD-making.

How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care? An observational study in oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: In current cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) aim at uniting care professionals from different disciplines to decide upon the best possible treatment plan for the patients based on the available scientific evidence. In Belgium, the multidisciplinary approach is mandatory and formally regulated since 2003. Current research indicates that MDTMs are not always truly multidisciplinary, ie, with a mix of medical as well as paramedical disciplines, and that the medical profession (physicians and medical specialists) tends to dominate the interaction in MDTMs. To ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential, significant attention should be devoted to the multidisciplinary character of these meetings. The aim of this study is to explore and describe the multidisciplinary character in MDTMs and how it is actually shaped in practice in different Flemish medical oncology departments. METHODS: For this study, we carried out an observational comparative case study. We studied 59 multidisciplinary team meetings at inpatient medical oncology departments in five different Belgian hospitals (academic as well as general) and explored multidisciplinarity and how it is actually shaped in practice. RESULTS: The study is unique in identifying and analyzing three distinct types of MDTMs. The analysis of the three types revealed an inconsistent and, at times, contradictory picture of multidisciplinary team meetings. The findings also align with previous studies arguing that MDTMs in oncology are typically driven by doctors, with limited input of nurses and other nonmedical staff in which decisions are argued on biomedical information and far less consideration of psychosocial aspects. CONCLUSION: The concept of a MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who work essentially independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Yet, this study has shown a worryingly low awareness of the true character of multidisciplinarity, particularly among medical disciplines.