Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29898716›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Multidisciplinary teams and ICT: a qualitative study exploring the use of technology and its impact on multidisciplinary team meetings.

Anna Janssen, Tracy Robinson, Melissa Brunner, Paul Harnett, Kylie E Museth, Tim Shaw

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna JanssenFaculty of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Level 2, Charles Perkins Centre D17, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. anna.janssen@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-9651
Tracy RobinsonSydney West Translational Cancer Research Centre, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Melissa BrunnerFaculty of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Level 2, Charles Perkins Centre D17, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Paul HarnettCrown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Kylie E MusethCrown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Tim ShawFaculty of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Level 2, Charles Perkins Centre D17, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUWestmead Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are an integral component in the delivery of health care. This is particularly evident in the delivery of cancer care, where multidisciplinary teams are internationally recognized as the preferred method for service delivery. The use of health information systems and technology are key enabling factors for building the capacity of MDTs to engage in improvement and implementation projects but there is scant research on how MDTs make use of technology and information systems or the kinds of systems needed for them to undertake improvement and implementation research. This paper reports findings on how seven MDTs in cancer care utilized technological and information systems and the barriers and enabling factors that impacted on their uptake.

methodsSeven multidisciplinary teams from two large metropolitan hospitals participated in the study. Qualitative methods including structured observations and semi structured interviews that explored how teams engaged in research and improvement activities were utilized. Participants were also observed and interviewed in relation to their use of data and health information systems. Findings were subject to content analysis and key themes were identified. Interviews were transcribed and de-identified and key themes were subsequently discussed with participants to allow for member checking and further clarification of findings.

resultsA total of 43 MDT meetings across seven tumor streams were observed. Of these, observation notes from 13 meetings contained direct references to emerging technologies and health information systems. Findings from 15 semi-structured interviews were also analyzed in relation to how MDTs used technology in weekly meetings, and the perceived impact of technology. Three broad themes emerged: (1) methods for data collection and use by MDTs, (2) the impact of technology on the MDT meeting environment, and (3) the impact of technology and information systems on clinical decision making.

conclusionThe study demonstrates that real time data collection and imaging may improve patient centered care coordination. However, ICTs can be used sub-optimally by teams. We therefore urge additional research to identify the enabling factors that support better collection and use of outcome data from ICT.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationMedical InformaticsPatient Care TeamHumansInterviews as TopicNeoplasmsPatient-Centered CareQualitative ResearchCancerDataMultidisciplinary carePatient-centered careTechnology

Identifiers

PMID29898716
PMCPMC6001028
OpenAlexW2808532277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.