Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36029030›Full record

Observational studyBJS open2022

Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: impact of logistical challenges on communication and decision-making.

Tayana Soukup, Benjamin W Lamb, Abigail Morbi, Nisha J Shah, Anish Bali, Viren Asher, Tasha Gandamihardja, Pasquale Giordano, Ara Darzi, Nick Sevdalis and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exploring holistic care needs in paediatric and teenage molecular radiotherapy: a parent and carer perspective.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Tayana SoukupCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service & Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0203-7264
Benjamin W LambDepartment of Urology, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abigail MorbiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nisha J ShahHeLEX Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anish BaliRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Viren AsherRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Tasha GandamihardjaChelmsford Breast Unit, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK.
Pasquale GiordanoWhipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3603-4574
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nick SevdalisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service & Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7560-8924
James S A GreenWhipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Barts Health NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Derby Hospital · GBBroomfield Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are widely used in cancer care. Recent research points to logistical challenges impeding MDT decision-making and dissatisfaction among members. This study sought to identify different types of logistical issues and how they impacted team processes.

methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs (breast, colorectal, and gynaecological) were recruited from UK hospitals. Validated observational instruments were used to measure decision-making (Metrics of Observational Decision-making, MDT-MODe), communication (Bales' Interaction Process Analysis, Bales' IPA), and case complexity (Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC), including logistical challenges (Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC), across 822 case discussions from 30 videoed meetings. Descriptive analysis and paired samples t tests were used to identify and compare frequency of different types of logistical challenges, along with partial correlations, controlling for clinical complexity of cases, to understand how such issues related to the MDT decision-making and communication.

resultsA significantly higher frequency of administrative and process issues (affecting 30 per cent of cases) was seen compared with the frequency of equipment issues (affecting 5 per cent of cases; P < 0.001) and the frequency of the attendance issues (affecting 16 per cent of cases; P < 0.001). The frequency of the attendance issues was significantly higher than the frequency of equipment issues (P < 0.001). Partial correlation analysis revealed that administrative and process issues, including attendance, were negatively correlated with quality of information (r = -0.15, P < 0.001; r = -0.11, P < 0.001), and equipment issues with the quality of contribution to meeting discussion (r = -0.14, P < 0.001). More questioning and answering by MDT members was evident with the administrative and process issues (r = 0.21, P < 0.001; r = 0.19, P < 0.001). Some differences were observed in teams' socioemotional reactions to the administrative and process issues with the gynaecological MDT showing positive correlation with positive socioemotional reactions (r = 0.20, P < 0.001), and the breast cancer MDT with negative socioemotional reactions (r = 0.17, P < 0.001).

conclusionAdministrative and process issues were the most frequent logistical challenges for the studied teams. Where diagnostic results were unavailable, and inadequate patient details provided, the quality of decision-making was reduced.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Care TeamCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingHumans

Identifiers

PMID36029030
PMCPMC9418925
OpenAlexW4293777723

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.