Using an Adapted Tumor Board Evaluation Tool for Quality Assessment of a Thoracic Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) are crucial for the management of complex oncology patients. Tools to evaluate MCC performance are needed. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the applicability of an existing validated performance assessment tool to evaluate the quality of thoracic MCCs (T-MCCs). METHODS: Data were collected from weekly T-MCCs over a 5-week period using the MCC Performance Assessment Tool and a self-assessment survey. Audio recordings were used to supplement observation notes. Case presentation, discussion duration, decision making contribution, recommendations, and consensus were captured. Quality of information and contribution were rated on a 1-5 scale. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to calculate means and composite scores representing overall MCC performance. RESULTS: A total of 44 cases were observed at the T-MCC with the mean presentation and discussion time of 6 minutes and 22 seconds. Quality of case history, radiologic and pathological information, and reason for case discussion were rated above average (>3), whereas inclusion of comorbidities and patient views were rated below average. Surgical oncologists had a higher discussion contribution compared with medical and radiation oncologists (3.6 v 2.9 and 2.4, respectively). The overall mean composite score was 55.9 (deemed average) with no cases categorized as poor or excellent. Radiologists and pathologists had mean preparation times of 81.7 and 144.0 minutes, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the applicability of a previously validated tool to assess the quality of a T-MCC at an academic comprehensive cancer center. The tool was found to be useful in identifying elements of the T-MCC process that needed improvement.

Characterizing the Patient Experience of CS/HIPEC Through In-Depth Interviews with Patients: Identification of Key Concepts in the Development of a Patient-Centered Program.

INTRODUCTION: The cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CS/HIPEC) procedure is complex, involving lengthy preparation and recovery in a heterogeneous patient group. Understanding the patient experience is essential to improving interactions with health professionals that is critical to recovery. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to characterize the early recovery and return to quality of life (at 3 and 6-12 months post-surgery, respectively) in patients having undergone CS/HIPEC, through structured interviews. METHODS: Two sets of interviews were conducted among 20 CS/HIPEC patients. Interviews were uploaded into QSR NVivo 10 qualitative software (QSR International, Australia) and coded by two study personnel. Interview 1 focused on initial treatment decision making and postoperative hospitalization, while interview 2 focused on recovery, supports, and return to quality of life. RESULTS: Among the participants, 60% were female and the mean age was 57 years (range 31-71). Diagnoses included disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (n = 6), appendiceal adenocarcinoma (n = 4), colorectal adenocarcinoma (n = 6), goblet cell (n = 2), and mesothelioma (n = 2). The first interview identified common themes of perioperative psychosocial isolation, lack of direction, and the importance of an established support system. Patients requested printed and audiovisual materials focused on addressing expectations. The main findings from the second interview captured patient experiences with longer-term complications, as well as surveillance. CONCLUSION: Focused interviews with patients recently having undergone CS/HIPEC identified key issues that may be addressed in programs to improve the patient experience. These issues were distinctly different in relation to phase of recovery, and patient-centered programs designed with these factors in mind have the potential to enhance the recovery process.