Back to Search Start Over

Evaluating A Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Checklist: Practice Versus Perceptions

Authors :
Nicole Hodgson
Chris Baliski
Ari Meguerditchian
Bryan Wells
S. Latosinsky
Louise Provencher
Shu Fong
Ellen Warner
Matthew Holmes
Scott Tyldesley
Rinku Sutradhar
Renee Hanarhan
Geoff Porter
Jay Engel
Arden Corter
Michelle Cotterchio
Alex Poole
Brie Banks
Erin D. Kennedy
André Robidoux
Keny Courneya
Mohammad Akbari
Brittany Speller
Frances C. Wright
Christine Friedenreich
Pamela Hebbard
Gary Groot
Lucy Heyler
Joanne Kotsopulos
Darren Biberdorf
Mylene Ward
Nancy N. Baxter
Nancy Down
Nigel Brockton
Christopher Cox
Julia Knight
Beatrice Boucher
Darren Brenner
Ivo Olivotto
Jean Francois Boileau
Angel Arnaout
Jeffrey Cau
May Lynn Quan
Mai-Kim Gervais
Doris Howell
Kelly A. Metcalfe
Marchy Minget
Julie Lemieux
Tulin Cil
Marco Simunovic
Kristin McBain
David Mcready
Selina Schmocker
Ralph George
Tony Gomes
Priya Chopra
Steven Narod
Karen Glass
Marianna Kapala
Source :
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 12:883-891
Publication Year :
2019
Publisher :
Informa UK Limited, 2019.

Abstract

Background Presentation to multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) supports optimal treatment of young women with breast cancer (YWBC). However, research shows barriers to MCC practice, and variation in professional attendance and referral patterns. A checklist may help overcome these barriers and support MCC practice with YWBC. Methods We developed, piloted and evaluated an MCC checklist in sites participating in a pan-Canadian study (RUBY; Reducing the bUrden of Breast cancer in Young women). A survey assessed checklist processes and impacts, and checklist data were analysed for checklist uptake, MCC presentation rates and MCC processes including staff attendance. Results Fifteen RUBY sites used the checklist (~50%), mostly for data collection/tracking. Some positive effects on clinical practice such as increased presentation of YWBC at MCC were reported, but most survey participants indicated that MCC processes were sufficient without the checklist. Conversely, checklist data show that only 31% of patients were presented at MCC. Of those, 41% were recommended treatment change. Conclusion Despite limited checklist uptake, there was evidence of its clinical practice benefit. Furthermore, it supported data collection/quality monitoring. Critically, checklist data showed gaps in MCC practice and low MCC presentation rates for YWBC. This contrasts with overall provider perceptions that MCCs are working well. Findings suggest that supports for MCC are needed but may best take the form of clear national practice recommendations and audit and feedback cycles to inform awareness of good MCC practice and outcomes. In this setting, tools like the MCC checklist may become helpful in supporting MCC practice.

Details

ISSN :
11782390
Volume :
12
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Accession number :
edsair.doi...........8eb692bb249988e9844290111f999e2c
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s219854