Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33028316›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Implementing a clinical cutting-edge and decision-making activity: an ethnographic teamwork approach to a molecular tumorboard.

Nathalie Bot, Mathias Waelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Nathalie BotInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Nathalie.bot@unige.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9486-5050
Mathias WaelliInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew technology implementation in healthcare must address important challenges such as interdisciplinary approaches. In oncology, molecular tumorboard (MTB) settings require biomedical researchers and clinical practitioners to collaborate and work together. While acknowledging that MTBs have been primarily investigated from a clinical rather than an organizational perspective, this article analyzes team processes and dynamics in a newly implemented MTB.

methodsA systemic case study of a newly implemented MTB in a Swiss teaching hospital was conducted between July 2017 and February 2018, with in situ work observations, six exploratory interviews and six semi-structured interviews.

resultsAn MTB workflow is progressively stabilized in four steps: 1) patient case submissions, 2) molecular analyses and results validation, 3) co-elaboration of therapeutic proposals, and 4) reporting during formal MTB sessions. The elaboration of a therapeutic proposal requires a framework for discussion that departs from the formality of institutional relationships, which was gradually incepted in this MTB.

conclusionsFirstly, our research showed that an MTB organizational process requires the five teaming components that characterizes a learning organization. It showed that at the organizational level, procedures can be stabilized without limiting practice flexibility. Secondly, this research highlighted the importance of non-clinical outcomes from an MTB, e.g. an important support network for the oncologist community.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCooperative BehaviorAnthropology, CulturalHospitals, TeachingHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPatient Care TeamSwitzerlandCare customizationInterdisciplinary teamLearning organizationMolecular tumorboardPrecision oncology

Identifiers

PMID33028316
PMCPMC7542871

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.