Sean Strong

Are multidisciplinary teams in secondary care cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature

ObjectiveTo investigate the cost effectiveness of management of patients within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting in cancer and non-cancer teams in secondary care.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, CINAHL, EconLit, Cochrane Library, and NHS HMIC.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, case–control, before and after and cross-sectional study designs including an economic evaluation of management decisions made in any disease in secondary care within the context of an MDT meeting.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list). MDTs were defined by evidence of two characteristics: decision making requiring a minimum of two disciplines; and regular meetings to discuss diagnosis, treatment and/or patient management, occurring at a physical location or by teleconferencing. Studies that reported on the costs of administering, preparing for, and attending MDT meetings and/or the subsequent direct medical costs of care, non-medical costs, or indirect costs, and any health outcomes that were relevant to the disease being investigated were included and classified as cancer or non-cancer MDTs.ResultsFifteen studies (11 RCTs in non-cancer care, 2 cohort studies in cancer and non-cancer care, and 2 before and after studies in cancer and non cancer care) were identified, all with a high risk of bias. Twelve papers reported the frequency of meetings which varied from daily to three monthly and all reported the number of disciplines included (mean 5, range 2 to 9). The results from all studies showed mixed effects; a high degree of heterogeneity prevented a meta-analysis of findings; and none of the studies reported how the potential savings of MDT working may offset the costs of administering, preparing for, and attending MDT meetings.ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to determine whether MDT working is cost-effective or not in secondary care. Further studies aimed at understanding the key aspects of MDT working that lead to cost-effective cancer and non-cancer care are required.

Spontaneous oesophageal rupture

A 50 year old man presented to his local emergency department complaining of central chest pain and breathlessness that had begun after an episode of vomiting. Physical examination revealed diminished breath sounds at the left lung base and a temperature of 38°C. An erect chest radiograph showed a small, left sided pleural effusion. An initial diagnosis of pneumonia was made, and the patient was started on intravenous antibiotics. The next morning he had deteriorated, and a repeat chest radiograph showed an increase in the pleural effusion and pneumomediastinum. Computed tomography with oral and intravenous contrast revealed contrast in the left pleural cavity, suggesting a diagnosis of oesophageal rupture. The patient was stabilised and subsequently underwent thoracotomy and wash-out, placement of an oesophageal stent, and insertion of a feeding jejunostomy. Spontaneous rupture of the oesophagus (Boerhaave’s syndrome) is a complete disruption of the oesophageal wall in the absence of pre-existing pathology and occurs with a sudden rise in intraoesophageal pressure, typically during vomiting. The left posterolateral lower oesophagus is most often affected, about 2-3 cm from the gastro-oesophageal junction. #### How common is spontaneous oesophageal rupture?

Feasibility RCT of definitive chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell cancer

Background:The optimal treatment for localised oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of an RCT comparing neoadjuvant treatment and surgery with definitive chemoradiotherapy.Methods:A feasibility RCT in three centres examined incident patients and reasons for ineligibility using multi-disciplinary team meeting records. Eligible patients were offered participation in the RCT with integrated qualitative research involving audio-recorded recruitment appointments and interviews with patients to inform recruitment training for staff.Results:Of 375 patients with oesophageal SCC, 42 (11.2%) were eligible. Reasons for eligibility varied between centres, with significantly differing proportions of patients excluded because of total tumour length (P=0.002). Analyses of audio-recordings and patient interviews showed that recruiters had challenges articulating the trial design in simple terms, balancing treatment arms and explaining the need for randomisation. Before analyses of the qualitative data and recruiter training no patients were randomised. Following training in one centre 5 of 16 eligible patients were randomised.Conclusions:An RCT of surgical vs non-surgical treatment for SCC of the oesophagus is not feasible in the UK alone because of the low number of incident eligible patients. A trial comparing diverse treatment approaches may be possible with investment to support the recruitment process.

Evaluating the role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in multi-disciplinary team recommendations for oesophago-gastric cancer.

Background:National guidelines recommend that fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in all patients being considered for radical treatment of oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer without computerised tomography scan (CTS) evidence of metastasis. Guidance also mandates that all patients with cancer have treatment decisions made within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. Little is known, however, about the influence of PET-CT on decision making within MDTs. The aim of this study was to assess the role of PET-CT in oesophago-gastric cancer on MDT decision making.Methods:A retrospective analysis of a prospectively held database of all patients with biopsy-proven oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer discussed by a specialist MDT was interrogated. Patients selected for radical treatment without CTS evidence of M1 disease were identified. The influence of PET-CT on MDT decision making was examined by establishing whether the PET-CT confirmed CTS findings of M0 disease (and did not change the patient staging pathway) or whether the PET-CT changed the pathway by showing unsuspected M1 disease, refuting CTS suspicious metastases, or identifying another lesion (needing further investigation).Results:In 102 MDT meetings, 418 patients were discussed, of whom 240 were initially considered for radical treatment and 238 undergoing PET-CT. The PET-CT confirmed CTS findings for 147 (61.8%) and changed MDT recommendations in 91 patients (38.2%) by (i) identifying M1 disease (n=43), (ii) refuting CTS suspicions of M1 disease (n=25), and (iii) identifying new lesions required for investigations (n=23).Conclusion:The addition of PET-CT to standard staging for oesophageal cancer led to changes in MDT recommendations in 93 (38.2%) patients, improving patient selection for radical treatment. The validity of the proposed methods for evaluating PET-CT on MDT decision making requires more work in other centres and teams.

A simple technique to identify key recruitment issues in randomised controlled trials: Q-QAT - quanti-qualitative appointment timing

BackgroundRecruitment to pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is acknowledged to be difficult, and few interventions have proved to be effective. Previous qualitative research has consistently revealed that recruiters provide imbalanced information about RCT treatments. However, qualitative research can be time-consuming to apply. Within a programme of research to optimise recruitment and informed consent in challenging RCTs, we developed a simple technique, Q-QAT (Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing), to systematically investigate and quantify the imbalance to help identify and address recruitment difficulties.MethodsThe Q-QAT technique comprised: 1) quantification of time spent discussing the RCT and its treatments using transcripts of audio-recorded recruitment appointments, 2) targeted qualitative research to understand the obstacles to recruitment and 3) feedback to recruiters on opportunities for improvement. This was applied to two RCTs with different clinical contexts and recruitment processes. Comparisons were made across clinical centres, recruiters and specialties.ResultsIn both RCTs, the Q-QAT technique first identified considerable variations in the time spent by recruiters discussing the RCT and its treatments. The patterns emerging from this initial quantification of recruitment appointments then enabled targeted qualitative research to understand the issues and make suggestions to improve recruitment. In RCT1, presentation of the treatments was balanced, but little time was devoted to describing the RCT. Qualitative research revealed patients would have considered participation, but lacked awareness of the RCT. In RCT2, the balance of treatment presentation varied by specialists and centres. Qualitative research revealed difficulties with equipoise and confidence among recruiters presenting the RCT. The quantitative and qualitative findings were well-received by recruiters and opportunities to improve information provision were discussed. A blind coding exercise across three researchers led to the development of guidelines that can be used to apply the Q-QAT technique to other difficult RCTs.ConclusionThe Q-QAT technique was easy to apply and rapidly identified obstacles to recruitment that could be understood through targeted qualitative research and addressed through feedback. The technique’s combination of quantitative and qualitative findings enabled the presentation of a holistic picture of recruitment challenges and added credibility to the feedback process.Note: both RCTs in this manuscript asked to be anonymised, so no trial registration details are provided.

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians’ difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians’ reported intentions compared with their actual practices. Methods and Findings Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians’ sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician’s expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters’ practices more widely. Conclusions Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians’ personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual: A qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

BackgroundChallenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.ResultsTwenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.ConclusionsThis study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

Surgical ward rounds in England: a trainee-led multi-centre study of current practice

BackgroundRecent guidance advocates daily consultant-led ward rounds, conducted in the morning with the presence of senior nursing staff and minimising patients on outlying wards. These recommendations aim to improve patient management through timely investigations, treatment and discharge. This study sought to evaluate the current surgical ward round practices in England.MethodsInformation regarding timing and staffing levels of surgical ward rounds was collected prospectively over a one-week period. The location of each patient was also documented. Two surgical trainee research collaboratives coordinated data collection from 19 hospitals and 13 surgical subspecialties.ResultsData from 471 ward rounds involving 5622 patient encounters was obtained. 367 (77.9%) ward rounds commenced before 9am. Of 422 weekday rounds, 190 (45%) were consultant-led compared with 33 of the 49 (67%) weekend rounds. 2474 (44%) patients were seen with a nurse present. 1518 patients (27%) were classified as outliers, with 361 ward rounds (67%) reporting at least one outlying patient.ConclusionRecommendations for daily consultant-led multi disciplinary ward rounds are poorly implemented in surgical practice, and patients continue to be managed on outlying wards. Although strategies may be employed to improve nursing attendance on ward rounds, substantial changes to workforce planning would be required to deliver daily consultant-led care. An increasing political focus on patient outcomes at weekends may prompt changes in these areas.

Multicentre observational study of adherence to Sepsis Six guidelines in emergency general surgery

Evidence‐based interventions may reduce mortality in surgical patients. This study documented the prevalence of sepsis, adherence to guidelines in its management, and timing of source control in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency.

The role of multi-disciplinary teams in decision-making for patients with recurrent malignant disease.

Background: It is mandatory in many countries for decisions for all new patients with cancer to be made within multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs). Whether patients with disease recurrence should also routinely be discussed by the MDT is unknown. Aim: This study investigated the role of an upper gastro intestinal (UGI) MDT in decision-making for patients with disease recurrence. Design: A retrospective review of prospectively kept MDT records (2010 to 2011) was performed identifying patients discussed with recurrence of oesophagogastric cancer. Information was recorded about: i) why an MDT referral was made, ii) who made the referral and iii) the final MDT recommendation. Implementation of the MDT recommendation was also examined. Participants: All patients discussed with recurrence of cancer at a central UGI cancer MDT were included. Results: During the study 54 MDT meetings included discussions regarding 304 new patients and 29 with disease recurrence. Referrals to the MDT for patients with recurrence came from outpatient clinics (n=19, 65.5%) or following emergency admission (n=10). Most referrals were made by the surgical team (n=25, 86.2%). MDT recommendations were best supportive care (n=11, 37.9%), palliative chemotherapy (n=9, 31.0%), stent (n=5, 17.2%), palliative radiotherapy (n=3, 10.3%) and further surgery (n=1, 3.4%), with 25 (86.2%) of these implemented. Conclusion: UGI MDTs focus on new referrals and only a small proportion of patients with recurrent disease are re-discussed. Many patients go on to receive further treatments. Whether such patients are optimally managed within the standard MDT is uncertain, however, and warrants further consideration.