Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42318165›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in health services2026

Operationalising MDT streamlining through standards of care: a framework for specification and implementation.

Tayana Soukup, Wasim Hamad, Ellen Quinney, Benjamin W Lamb

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Tayana SoukupDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Wasim HamadBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ellen QuinneyNHS Northeast London Cancer Alliance, London, United Kingdom.
Benjamin W LambBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are central to cancer treatment planning in the UK, but increasing caseloads, growing clinical complexity, and workforce constraints have raised concerns about the sustainability of a "discuss-every-case" model. National guidance in England now promotes MDT streamlining, using Standards of Care (SoCs) to stratify cases requiring full multidisciplinary discussion from those suitable for standardised pathways. However, there remains limited clarity on how SoCs should be specified and governed to ensure safety, consistency, and clinical accountability in routine practice. This mini-review synthesises national policy, emerging empirical literature on MDT streamlining, and evidence from complexity research to examine SoCs as a mechanism for operationalising MDT reform. We highlight that empirical evaluations of streamlining remain limited and heterogeneous, and that reported effects depend less on caseload reduction than on information readiness, organisational context, and explicit escalation criteria. Drawing on NHS England guidance, specialty recommendations from the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS), and the Measure of case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC), we present a structured framework to support SoC development. The framework specifies parameters across patient, pathology, and treatment domains (in line with the MeDiC tool), alongside explicit eligibility, exception, and escalation logic, and interfaces with governance requirements for triage, data completeness, and audit. By making decision boundaries transparent and multidimensional, this approach addresses key risks associated with oversimplification and inappropriate exclusion while preserving clinical judgement and patient-centred care. Structured approaches to SoC development provide a defensible foundation for focusing MDT discussion where it adds greatest value under increasing service pressures.

Indexed as

cancer servicescase complexityclinical governancedecision-makingMDT streamliningmultidisciplinary team meetingsservice redesignstandards of care

Identifiers

PMID42318165
PMCPMC13272396

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.