scholarly journals Reviewing Cancer Care Team Effectiveness

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen H. Taplin ◽  
Sallie Weaver ◽  
Eduardo Salas ◽  
Veronica Chollette ◽  
Heather M. Edwards ◽  
...  

The authors did not see evidence that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9578-9578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy A. Ahmed ◽  
Allison Harvey ◽  
Marni Amsellem ◽  
Thomas J. Smith

9578 Background: A 2010 NIH study indicates direct cancer care expenditures will reach $158 billion in the U.S. by 2020, impacting millions of Americans. The cost of insurance for a family of 4 has increased from $6000 (2000) to over $16,000 (2011). Medical debt is a significant cause of personal bankruptcy, even if insured. The financial realities posed by costs associated with cancer care greatly complicate a cancer diagnosis. The most recent American College of Physicians Ethics Manual recommends all parties must interact honestly, openly, and fairly. (Snyder L, et al. Ann Int Med 2012, p86) This analysis explores the occurrence and value of patient-provider communication surrounding costs associated with care in a national survey of those affected by cancer. Methods: From 2011-12, 505 individuals attending Frankly Speaking About Cancer: Coping with the Cost of Care workshops completed a survey assessing experiences about the costs of cancer care. This is a Cancer Support Community national evidence-based educational program. All attendees (n=708) were eligible to complete survey. Results: Most attendees (71.3%) responded. The majority (62.4%) were people with cancer/survivors; the remainder included spouses/partners, family members, and 8.7% were health care professionals. Most (80.8%) were Caucasian, and averaged 57.2 years. Of those with cancer, 89.9% were insured at diagnosis. 59.4% reported no one on their health care team initiated a discussion about the financial aspects of their care. Included in this figure, 22.7% actively sought information from health care team, and 36.7% received no information about cost. When topic was initiated, it was by social workers (16.2%), physicians (12.3%), nurses (6.3%) or financial specialists (8.2%). When information was provided, 72.1% found it somewhat or very useful. Also, regardless of provider discussion, respondents independently sought resources for managing costs, such as other patients (44.2%), the Internet (41.5%), and patient support organizations (38.1%). Conclusions: Patients want financial information but do not receive it. These data highlight the need and value of providers initiating a dialogue about the cost of cancer care with patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9588-9588
Author(s):  
Joanne S Buzaglo ◽  
Melissa F Miller ◽  
Alexandra K Zaleta ◽  
Jamese Johnson ◽  
Niraj K. Gupta

9588 Background: Melanoma survivors are at risk for significant financial burden due to cancer care and out of pocket costs. We explored 1) the financial impact of melanoma and its relationship to cancer-related distress, and 2) survivors’ experiences discussing financial burden with their health care team. Methods: Of 110 melanoma survivors enrolled in the Cancer Support Community’s online Cancer Experience Registry, 56 completed questions about financial impact of cancer and cost of care communication. Participants rated concern (0 = not at all; 4 = very seriously) about 27 items encompassing psychological, emotional, physical and practical concerns; items were summed into a total distress score (mean = 33, SD = 21, range 0-88). Financial impact and overall distress were examined via regression analysis. Results: Participants were 71% female, 89% Caucasian, median age 54, and median time since diagnosis 2.5 years. Total annual income: 34% < $60K; 46% $60K+; 20% not reported. 24% spent $101-250/month on melanoma out of pocket costs; 20% spent $251-500; and 24% spent ≥$500. The top concern was health insurance/money worries (69% moderately to very seriously concerned). Due to medical costs, 57% depleted their savings, 20% borrowed against or used retirement money, 20% used pharmaceutical assistance programs, 13% skipped medicine dosages at least sometimes, and 17% postponed filling prescriptions. Only 28% reported that their health care team spoke to them about cost of care, and 28% were asked about financial distress; 42% desired financial assistance. Financial impact was associated with an increase in overall distress for those with income < $60K (p < .05; interaction p < 0.05). Conclusions: Substantial proportions of melanoma survivors experience financial burden that can impact quality of life, particularly lower income individuals. Although oncologists are encouraged to discuss treatment costs, most patients report they have not had these discussions with providers. These results support the development/evaluation of interventions to enhance doctor-patient communication, and financial counseling to minimize financial burden of melanoma and the risks it can confer for quality of life, course of cancer care, and health outcomes.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 45-45
Author(s):  
Erica E. Fortune ◽  
Melissa F. Miller ◽  
Elissa C. Kranzler ◽  
Jemeille Ackourey ◽  
Kelly Clark ◽  
...  

Background: Numerous factors contribute to the financial burden experienced by the cancer population, including medical expenses and possible job disruption or loss. The financial burdens that accompany a cancer diagnosis can influence cancer-care decisions, including the delay of essential treatment or appointments, with deleterious effects on physical and mental quality of life (QOL). Further, certain sociodemographic groups face increased risk of financial burden. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between financial burden, postponing care, and physical and emotional quality of life among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Methods: 435 patients (72% MM; 28% CLL) enrolled in the Cancer Support Community's online survey, the Cancer Experience Registry, answered questions related to financial burden (8 items; yes/no response), postponing care (6 items; 5-point Likert scale), and QOL assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29v2.0) subscales (Anxiety, Depression, Physical Function, and Fatigue) with transformed T scores. We applied Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to understand the direct and indirect relationship of financial burden (tally of "yes" responses to the 8 financial cost variables) with latent constructs comprising postponing care, physical QOL, and emotional QOL, and sociodemographic and clinical predictor variables. Results: Sample characteristics: mean age=62 yrs (9.2); 88% non-Hispanic White; 6% non-Hispanic Black; mean time since diagnosis=5.2 yrs (4.3); 28% ISS Stage 3 for MM or Rai Stage 3-4 for CLL. Regarding financial status, 21% have an annual income &lt;$40k; 22% spent &gt;$500 in monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) costs to cover cancer care and an additional 23% spent over $250. Due to the financial costs of cancer care, 29% of participants depleted their savings, 19% borrowed against or used money from a retirement plan, 13% liquidated assets, 7% collected unemployment insurance, 4% took an extra job, 4% chose a less effective treatment, 4% cashed in a life insurance policy early, and 2% had their house foreclosed. While 41% were moderately to very seriously concerned about health insurance or money, 66% reported that no one from their health care team talked to them about costs. Based on the percent reporting sometimes, often, or always engaging in behaviors related to postponing care: 12% postponed doctor's appointments, 5% postponed follow-up screening or bloodwork, 6% postponed filling prescriptions, 5% skipped dosages of prescribed drugs, 12% delayed complementary treatment including therapy, and 16% postponed psychological counseling or support. SEM analyses demonstrate that age (standardized path coefficient β=-0.17), low income (β=0.24), OOP costs (β=0.18), time since diagnosis (β=0.11), and advanced stage (β=0.17) had a significant (p&lt;.05) effect on financial burden and financial burden, in turn, had a significant effect on postponing care (β=0.40)Further, financial burden had both a direct (β=-0.17) and indirect (β=-0.10) effect through postponing care on physical QOL, and both a direct (β=0.15) and indirect (β=0.12) effect through postponing care on emotional QOL. The χ2 of the final model was 454.2 (df=129, p&lt;.001) and was a reasonably good fit to the data (RMSEA=0.076). Conclusions: Findings highlight the significant effect of financial burden on postponing care and poorer QOL among MM and CLL patients. Financial burden was associated with patients' treatment decisions for both cancer and psychological care, and while many patients reported distress about money and health insurance, the majority did not discuss cost of care with their health care team. Thus, MM and CLL patients may benefit from access to no- or low-cost preventative and supportive psychosocial care, as well as financial counseling and assistance with health care team communication. Patient-focused organizations help address this need through no-cost resources, including distress screening tools, access to a financial counselor on a toll-free helpline, and information about treatment decision-making. Future research that incorporates cost of care into physician-patient communication is warranted. Disclosures Fortune: Boston Scientific Foundation: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Kranzler:Astellas Pharma US, Inc.: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, Inc.: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding. Leblanc:Agios, AbbVie, and Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CareVive, BMS/Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Flatiron, Helsinn, Heron, Otsuka, Medtronic, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Welvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Cancer Society, BMS, Duke University, NINR/NIH, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties: Royalties. Zaleta:Athenex Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tayana Soukup ◽  
Ged Murtagh ◽  
Ben W Lamb ◽  
James Green ◽  
Nick Sevdalis

Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are a standard cancer care policy in many countries worldwide. Despite an increase in research in a recent decade on MDTs and their care planning meetings, the implementation of MDT-driven decision-making (fidelity) remains unstudied. We report a feasibility evaluation of a novel method for assessing cancer MDT decision-making fidelity. We used an observational protocol to assess (1) the degree to which MDTs adhere to the stages of group decision-making as per the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and (2) the degree of multidisciplinarity underpinning individual case reviews in the meetings. MethodsThis is a prospective observational study. Breast, colorectal and gynaecological cancer MDTs in the Greater London and Derbyshire (United Kingdom) areas were video recorded over 12-weekly meetings encompassing 822 case reviews. Data were coded and analysed using frequency counts.Results Eight interaction formats during case reviews were identified. case reviews were not always multi-disciplinary: only 8% of overall reviews involved all five clinical disciplines present, and 38% included four of five. The majority of case reviews (i.e. 54%) took place between two (25%) or three (29%) disciplines only. Surgeons (83%) and oncologists (8%) most consistently engaged in all stages of decision-making. While all patients put forward for MDT review were actually reviewed, a small percentage of them (4%) either bypassed the orientation (case presentation) and went straight into discussing the patient, or they did not articulate the final decision to the entire team (8%). Conclusions Assessing fidelity of MDT decision-making at the point of their weekly meetings is feasible. We found that despite being a set policy, case reviews are not entirely MDT-driven. We discuss implications in relation to the current eco-political climate, and the quality and safety of care. Our findings are in line with the current national initiatives in the UK on streamlining MDT meetings, and could help decide how to re-organise them to be most efficient.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erboon Ekasingh ◽  
Roger Simnett ◽  
Wendy J. Green

ABSTRACT Greenhouse gas (GHG) assurance is increasingly used by companies as a means to increase stakeholder confidence in the quality of externally reported carbon emissions. The multidisciplinary nature of these engagements means that assurance is performed primarily by multidisciplinary teams. Prior research suggests the effectiveness of such teams could be affected by team composition and team processes. We employ a retrospective field study to examine the impact of educational diversity and team member elaboration on multidisciplinary GHG assurance team effectiveness. Results show that team processes such as sufficiency of elaboration on different team member perspectives significantly increases the perceived effectiveness of the teams. While educational diversity is not found to directly improve perceived team effectiveness, it is found to have a positive effect through increasing perceived sufficiency of elaboration. These findings have important implications for standard setters and audit firms undertaking GHG assurance engagements.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy E. Robinson ◽  
Anna Janssen ◽  
Paul Harnett ◽  
Kylie E. Museth ◽  
Pamela J. Provan ◽  
...  

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify key enabling factors for engaging multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care across the spectrum of translational research and quality improvement (QI) projects. Methods The study was conducted in two large Sydney metropolitan hospitals. Qualitative methods, including structured observations of MDT meetings and semi-structured interviews with MDT leaders and champions, were used to identify how teams interact with and generate research and implementation initiatives. Enabling factors for and barriers to the engagement of MDTs in translational research and QI were identified. Results Four key enabling factors emerged from the analysis of data generated from observing 43 MDT meetings and 18 semi-structured interviews: (1) access to high-quality data around individual and team performance; (2) research-active team leaders; (3) having experts, such as implementation scientists, embedded into teams; and (4) having dedicated research or QI-focused meetings. Barriers included a lack of time, administrative support, research expertise and access to real-time data. Conclusions The identification of enabling factors for and barriers to translational research and QI provides evidence for how multidisciplinary cancer care teams may best be engaged in research and QI that aims to improve service and care outcomes. What is known about the topic? MDTs are key to the delivery of cancer care in Australia, but there is scant research into how teams can best be engaged in translating research from basic science through to implementation science and QI. What does this paper add? This paper provides new evidence from an immersive study of cancer care MDTs in two large metropolitan hospitals in Sydney (NSW, Australia), regarding the key enabling factors for and barriers to successful engagement in translational research and QI in cancer care. What are the implications for practitioners? Cancer care professionals in MDTs are presented with an opportunity to embed translational research and QI into cancer care. MDTs can operate as an ideal vehicle to look beyond individual patient outcomes to broader trends and population health outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2.29) ◽  
pp. 642
Author(s):  
Shawqi Mohammed Hussein ◽  
Salwani Mohd Daud ◽  
Teddy Mantoro ◽  
Sya Azmeela Shariff ◽  
Mahmudul Hasan

Team effectiveness depends on the performance of each team member. Success or failure of a team highly relies on the interaction level of all members. Effective teamwork is a critical learning outcome for engineering students and it is one of the most desired skill required by employers. All engineering graduates must have the ability to function in multidisciplinary teams. Prior studies had also found that, many Malaysian employers agreed that the lack of team working skill among the Malaysian graduates would risk the survival of an organisation and in result developing low-level interpersonal skills which is equally necessary for working effectively in a team. However, in the engineering education literature most of the previous studies have focused on the area of professional environments. A very few studies were conducted in the context of educational environments to identify the factors that affect the team effectiveness in higher education. Moreover several internal and external factors also influence the outcomes of student teamwork and not every group is effective in their objectives and numerous groups fail. Therefore, this study is designed to identify the underlying factors that help students to develop their teamwork skill, thus improving team effectiveness. Hence, upon analysing the articles found in this study, nine (factors were identified to have more impacts towards team effectiveness, which were (1) team communication, (2) trust, (3) team cohesion, (4) team leadership, (5) team coordination and cooperation, (6) team commitment, (7) team performance, (8) team satisfaction, and (9) task interdependence. In addition, after comparing several models and theories, a conceptual model that demonstrates relationships among the identified factors was proposed. It asserted team performance and team satisfaction as the predictors of team effectiveness.  


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e000435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynleigh Evans ◽  
Brendan Donovan ◽  
Yiren Liu ◽  
Tim Shaw ◽  
Paul Harnett

IntroductionWhile multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are well established in many healthcare institutions, both how they function and their role in decision-making vary widely. This study adopted an innovative methodology to assess multidisciplinary team performance and engage teams in performance improvement strategies.MethodsThe study comprised a survey to evaluate MDT members’ perceptions of their team’s performance before the implementation of the programme and annually thereafter, and a maturity matrix designed as a self-assessment tool. Each MDT used the matrix to collectively assess its performance and identify areas for improvement.ResultsIn the first cycle, 180 member surveys from 19 MDTs were completed. This provided insights into team members’ perceptions of performance. 12 of these teams continued with the study and all 12 completed the matrix. Most teams rated themselves at level one or two (low) on a scale of five for most items.ConclusionsThe MDT survey and maturity matrix have the potential to be useful for cancer care teams to identify their strengths and weaknesses and monitor performance over time and also for management to review its performance against standard criteria and to identify priority areas for improvement and further support.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document