4.7 Article

Facilitators and Barriers to Teamworking and Patient Centeredness in Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams: Findings of a National Study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 1408-1416

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2676-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research through the Imperial Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality
  2. Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust Urology and RD Departments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are the standard means of making clinical decisions in surgical oncology. The aim of this study was to explore the views of MDT members regarding contribution to the MDT, representation of patients' views, and dealing with disagreements in MDT meetings-issues that affect clinical decision making, but have not previously been addressed. Responses to open questions from a 2009 national survey of MDT members about effective MDT working in the United Kingdom were analyzed for content. Emergent themes were identified and tabulated, and verbatim quotes were extracted to validate and illustrate themes. Free-text responses from 1,636 MDT members were analyzed. Key themes were: (1) the importance of nontechnical skills, organizational support, and good relationships between team members for effective teamworking; (2) recording of disagreements (potentially sharing them with patients) and the importance of patient-centered information in relation to team decision making; (3) the central role of clinical nurse specialists as the patient's advocates, complementing the role of physicians in relation to patient centeredness. Developing team members' nontechnical skills and providing organizational support are necessary to help ensure that MDTs are delivering high-quality, patient-centered care. Recording dissent in decision making within the MDT is an important element, which should be defined further. The question of how best to represent the patient in MDT meetings also requires further exploration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据