Ewan Ferlie

PP45 Developing Recommendations to Improve the Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Chronic Diseases

Background Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) have been endorsed by the Department of Health as the core model for managing chronic diseases. It is believed that MDMs ensure higher quality decision making and improved outcomes. However, the evidence underpinning the development of MDMs is not strong and the degree to which MDMs have been absorbed into clinical practice varies widely across conditions and settings. We conducted a large mixed-methods study of multidisciplinary teams in chronic diseases to examine and explore determinants of effective decision making. We applied a transparent and explicit consensus development method to develop recommendations, based on our results, to improve MDM decision making and effectiveness. Methods We collected qualitative and quantitative data from 12 multidisciplinary teams (gynaecological, skin and haematological cancers, mental health, memory clinics and heart failure). Data included non-participant observation of 370 MDMs and follow up of medical records, 53 interviews with healthcare professionals and 20 patient interviews. We triangulated these datasets to increase the internal validity and consistency of our findings. Over the course of successive analytic meetings we identified patterns of convergence to develop a coherent framework for understanding our findings. Based on this analysis we derived a series of potential recommendations for discussion and rating by an expert consensus development panel including policy makers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives. Results Issues for discussion by the consensus panel included: whether or not patients should attend MDMs; how patient perspectives can be best represented; determining which patients, and indeed whether all patients should be included for discussion; suggestions for improvements in MDM processes, including the structure and co-ordination of MDMs; whether functions such as teaching and emotional support for team members have a valid role in the MDM, and if so, how best to incorporate them. The issue of how to incorporate multi-morbidity in disease specific MDMs was also considered. Conclusion We have conducted the largest study of its kind in this area and the first to examine and compare MDMs for different chronic diseases. In addition, the use of a diverse range of qualitative and quantitative data allowed an unprecedented breadth and depth of data to be explored. This produced wide ranging, important and feasible recommendations to improve the effectiveness of MDMs which, the data suggest are generalisable to different patient groups.

OP92 Improving the Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Chronic Diseases: Assessing the Predictors of Decision Implementation

Background Department of Health policy states that health care for chronic diseases should be delivered through multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs). It is known that multidisciplinary teams should include certain features (for example commitment to leadership) to be effective. But additional factors need to be considered: e.g. the context in which MDMs operate, group decision processes, and patient related factors such as their preferences and socio-demographic characteristics. There is, therefore, a need for research on MDMs to identify factors that promote effective MDM decision-making in terms of decision implementation. We report on a study, unique in its size and scope, making its results applicable across the NHS. Methods We undertook an observational study of 370 MDMs in 12 different teams (gynaecological, skin and haematological cancers, mental health, heart failure and memory clinics) in the North Thames area. Analyses used random effects logistic regression models, allowing for MDM clustering, to investigate the influence of MDM and patient related factors on decision implementation. Decision implementation and patient demographics were ascertained from medical records. The MDM characteristics examined were Team Climate Score, disease type, team skill-mix (Adjusted Teachman’s Index and number of professional categories represented), and whether defined co-morbidities and patient preferences were considered. The patient characteristics examined were age, gender and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score. Results We will present descriptive analyses on 6053 discussions of 3184 patients. For example, discussions on 17% of patients led to no decision. Decision implementation ranged from 67% (Mental Health) to 79% (Memory Clinics). Reasons for non-implementation will be presented. We will present the results of logistic regression on the patient and MDM related factors associated with decision implementation, including the extent to which patient related factors, for example their socio-economic circumstances, were associated with implementation. We will also describe the patient and MDM related factors associated with patient preferences being taken into account. Conclusion We address recent calls for empirical research on MDM decision-making in routine practice to understand how and under what conditions MDMs produce effective decisions, as well as methods to effectively obtain and consider patient preferences. As the largest study of its kind in this area, and the first to examine and compare MDMs for different chronic diseases, this study enables identification of factors associated with good outcomes that are generalisable across healthcare.