Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33664641›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2021

Reorganizing the Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in a Tertiary Centre for Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Adds Value to the Internal and Regional Care Pathways. A Mixed Method Evaluation.

Lidia S van Huizen, Pieter U Dijkstra, Patrick H J Hemmer, Boudewijn van Etten, Carlijn I Buis, Linde Olsder, Frederike G I van Vilsteren, Kees C T B Ahaus, Jan L N Roodenburg

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 HuizenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8106-4190
Pieter U DijkstraUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8455-1093
Patrick H J HemmerUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3228-6712
Boudewijn van EttenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2900-2942
Carlijn I BuisUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2379-3723
Linde OlsderUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frederike G I van VilsterenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8598-1017
Kees C T B AhausUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Quality and Patient Safety, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9973-3746
Jan L N RoodenburgUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8599-1242

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe reorganisation of the structure of a Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (GIO-MDTM) in a tertiary centre with three care pathways is evaluated on added value.

methodsIn a mixed method investigation, process indicators such as throughput times were analysed and stakeholders were interviewed regarding benefits and drawbacks of the reorganisation and current MDTM functioning.

resultsFor the hepatobiliary care pathway, the time to treatment plan increased, but the time to start treatment reduced significantly. The percentage of patients treated within the Dutch standard of 63 days increased for the three care pathways. From the interviews, three themes emerged: added value of MDTMs, focus on planning integrated care and awareness of possible improvements. DISCUSSION: The importance of evaluating interventions in oncology care pathways is shown, including detecting unexpected drawbacks. The evaluation provides insight into complex dynamics of the care pathways and contributes with recommendations on functioning of an MDTM.

conclusionsThroughput times are only partly determined by oncology care pathway management, but have influence on the functioning of MDTMs. Process indicator information can help to reflect on integration of care in the region, resulting in an increase of patients treated within the Dutch standard.

Indexed as

added valuecare pathwayscritical pathways (MeSH)integrated caremixed method evaluationmultidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM)oncology

Identifiers

PMID33664641
PMCPMC7908930

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.