Using computerised decision support to improve compliance of cancer multidisciplinary meetings with evidence-based guidance

Vivek Patkar, Dionisio Acosta, Tim Davidson, Alison Jones, John Fox, Mohammed Keshtgar, Vivek Patkar, Dionisio Acosta, Tim Davidson, Alison Jones, John Fox, Mohammed Keshtgar

Abstract

Objectives: The cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting (MDM) is regarded as the best platform to reduce unwarranted variation in cancer care through evidence-compliant management. However, MDMs are often overburdened with many different agendas and hence struggle to achieve their full potential. The authors developed an interactive clinical decision support system called MATE (Multidisciplinary meeting Assistant and Treatment sElector) to facilitate explicit evidence-based decision making in the breast MDMs.

Design: Audit study and a questionnaire survey.

Setting: Breast multidisciplinary unit in a large secondary care teaching hospital.

Participants: All members of the breast MDT at the Royal Free Hospital, London, were consulted during the process of MATE development and implementation. The emphasis was on acknowledging the clinical needs and practical constraints of the MDT and fitting the system around the team's workflow rather than the other way around. Delegates, who attended MATE workshop at the England Cancer Networks' Development Programme conference in March 2010, participated in the questionnaire survey.

Outcome measures: The measures included evidence-compliant care, measured by adherence to clinical practice guidelines, and promoting research, measured by the patient identification rate for ongoing clinical trials.

Results: MATE identified 61% more patients who were potentially eligible for recruitment into clinical trials than the MDT, and MATE recommendations demonstrated better concordance with clinical practice guideline than MDT recommendations (97% of MATE vs 93.2% of MDT; N=984). MATE is in routine use in breast MDMs at the Royal Free Hospital, London, and wider evaluations are being considered.

Conclusions: Sophisticated decision support systems can enhance the conduct of MDMs in a way that is acceptable to and valued by the clinical team. Further rigorous evaluations are required to examine cost-effectiveness and measure the impact on patient outcomes. The decision support technology used in MATE is generic and if found useful can be applied across medicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interest: VP, DA, JF and MK have following specified non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work. UCL (B) (a subsidiary of University College London) and ISIS innovation (a subsidiary of the University of Oxford) are actively seeking to commercialise aspects of this project through a spin-out company.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MATE (Multidisciplinary meeting Assistant and Treatment sElector) in use at Royal Free breast multidisciplinary team meeting.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Composite screenshot showing the user interface and some of the functionalities of MATE (Multidisciplinary meeting Assistant and Treatment sElector). Upper left: the summary screen for the patient; upper right: one of the many prognostication tools available; lower left: decision panel where system recommendations and eligible clinical trials are highlighted in blue; lower right: the evidential justification for each recommended option.

References

    1. Westert GP, Faber M. Commentary: the Dutch approach to unwarranted medical practice variation. BMJ 2011;342:d1429.
    1. Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Chou P, et al. Treatment and survival in breast cancer in the Eastern Region of England. Ann Oncol 2010;21:291–6
    1. Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ 2010;340:c951.
    1. Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:2116–25
    1. Mazzaferro V, Majno P. Principles for the best multidisciplinary meetings. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:323–5
    1. Lamb BW, Green JS, Vincent C, et al. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol 2011;20:163–8
    1. National Cancer Peer Review Programme Report 2009/2010. An overview of the findings from the 2009/2010 National Cancer Peer Review of Cancer Services in England. National Cancer Peer Review Programme: National Cancer Action Team, 2010.
    1. Patkar V, Acosta D, Davidson T, et al. Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: evidence, challenges, and the role of clinical decision support technology. Int J Breast Cancer 2011;2011:831605.
    1. Rosenbloom ST, Denny JC, Xu H, et al. Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:181–6
    1. Webb SB, Jr, Bracken MB, Wagner FC., Jr Retrospective versus prospective audit: a trial of two methods. Hosp Med Staff 1978;7:13–17
    1. Scott IA, Harper CM. Guideline-discordant care in acute myocardial infarction: predictors and outcomes. Med J Aust 2002;177:26–31
    1. Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, et al. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2006;295:1912–20
    1. Bahtsevani C, Uden G, Willman A. Outcomes of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:427–33
    1. Lara PN, Jr, Higdon R, Lim N, et al. Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1728–33
    1. Bouvier AM, Bauvin E, Danzon A, et al. Place of multidisciplinary consulting meetings and clinical trials in the management of colorectal cancer in France in 2000. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2007;31:286–91
    1. Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjewierden A, et al. Knowledge Engineering and Management: The Common KADS Methodology. The MIT Press, 1999
    1. Golbeck J, Fragoso G, Hartel F, et al. The national cancer institutes thesaurus and ontology. J Web Semantics 2003;1:75–80
    1. Sutton DR, Fox J. The syntax and semantics of the PROforma guideline modeling language. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:433–43
    1. Acosta D, et al. Challenges in delivering decision support systems: the MATE experience. In: Knowledge Representation for Health-Care. Data, Processes and Guidelines. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010:124–40
    1. Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W. What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2006;63:263–300
    1. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1223–38
    1. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 2007;334:455–9
    1. Choy ET, Chiu A, Butow P, et al. A pilot study to evaluate the impact of involving breast cancer patients in the multidisciplinary discussion of their disease and treatment plan. Breast 2007;16:178–89

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren