Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31699717›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Does multidisciplinary videoconferencing between a head-and-neck cancer centre and its partner hospital add value to their patient care and decision-making? A mixed-method evaluation.

Lidia S van Huizen, Pieter Dijkstra, Gyorgy B Halmos, Johanna G M van den Hoek, Klaas T van der Laan, Oda B Wijers, Kees Ahaus, Jan G A M de Visscher, Jan Roodenburg

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Lidia S van HuizenQuality and Patient Safety, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands l.s.van.huizen@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-8106-4190
Pieter DijkstraCentre for Rehabilitation, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gyorgy B HalmosEar, Nose and Throat, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Johanna G M van den HoekRadiotherapy, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Klaas T van der LaanEar, Nose and Throat, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Oda B WijersRadiotherapeutic Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Kees AhausErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan G A M de VisscherOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Jan RoodenburgOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGiven the difficulties in diagnosing and treating head-and-neck cancer, care is centralised in the Netherlands in eight head-and-neck cancer centres and six satellite regional hospitals as preferred partners. A requirement is that all patients of the partner should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) with the head-and-neck centre as part of a Dutch health policy rule. In this mixed-method study, we evaluate the value that the video-conferenced MDT adds to the MDTs in the care pathway, quantitative regarding recommendations given and qualitative in terms of benefits for the teams and the patient.

designA sequential mixed-method study.

settingOne oncology centre and its partner in the Northern part of the Netherlands.

participantsHead-and-neck cancer specialists presenting patient cases during video-conferenced MDT over a period of 6 months. Semistructured interviews held with six medical specialists, three from the centre and three from the partner. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of cases in which recommendations were given on diagnostic and/or therapeutic plans during video-conferenced MDT.

resultsIn eight of the 336 patient cases presented (2%), specialists offered recommendations to the collaborating team (three given from centre to partner and five from partner to centre). Recommendations mainly consisted of alternative diagnostic modalities or treatment plans for a specific patient. Interviews revealed that specialists perceive added value in discussing complex cases because the other team offered a fresh perspective by hearing the case 'as new'. The teams recognise the importance of keeping their medical viewpoints aligned, but the requirement (that the partner should discuss all patients) was seen as outdated.

conclusionsThe added value of the video-conferenced MDT is small considering patient care, but the specialists recognised that it is important to keep their medical viewpoints aligned and that their patients benefit from the discussions on complex cases.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDecision MakingVideoconferencingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient Care TeamQualitative Researchadded valuecollaborating teamshead-and-neck cancermixed method studymultidisciplinary team meetings (MDT)videoconferencing (MeSH term)

Identifiers

PMID31699717
PMCPMC6858233

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.