BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs), also known as tumor conferences, are a cornerstone of cancer treatments. However, barriers such as incomplete patient information or logistical challenges can postpone tumor board decisions and delay patient treatment, potentially affecting clinical outcomes. Therapeutic Assistance and Decision algorithms for hepatobiliary tumor Boards (ADBoard) aims to reduce this delay by providing automated data extraction and high-quality, evidence-based treatment recommendations.
METHODS: With the help of natural language processing, relevant patient information will be automatically extracted from electronic medical records and used to complete a classic tumor conference protocol. A machine learning model is trained on retrospective MDM data and clinical guidelines to recommend treatment options for patients in our inclusion criteria. Study participants will be randomized to either MDM with ADBoard (Arm A: MDM-AB) or conventional MDM (Arm B: MDM-C). The concordance of recommendations of both groups will be compared using interrater reliability. We hypothesize that the therapy recommendations of ADBoard would be in high agreement with those of the MDM-C, with a Cohen\'s kappa value of ≥ 0.75. Furthermore, our secondary hypotheses state that the completeness of patient information presented in MDM is higher when using ADBoard than without, and the explainability of tumor board protocols in MDM-AB is higher compared to MDM-C as measured by the System Causability Scale.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of ADBoard aims to improve the quality and completeness of the data required for MDM decision-making and to propose therapeutic recommendations that consider current medical evidence and guidelines in a transparent and reproducible manner.
BACKGROUND: The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
BACKGROUND: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (trial identifying number: NCT05681949; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05681949 ) on 12 January 2023.

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) cause substantial morbidity to patients and are extremely challenging for clinicians. Their management can include multiple operations, antibiotics, and prolonged hospital admissions. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) are increasingly used for collaborative decision-making around the management of PJIs, but thus far there has been no examination of the role of MDTM in decisions and management. This study aimed to examine interactions in a PJI MDTM to identify the dynamics in decision-making, and inter-specialty relationships more broadly.
Twelve MDTMs over 7 months at an Australian tertiary referral hospital were video recorded, transcribed, and thematic analysis was performed.
Thematic analysis revealed four key areas of collaborative discussion 1. Achieving Inter-specialty Balance: The role of the multidisciplinary team discussion in providing balance between specialty views, and traversing the barriers between specialty interactions. 2. Negotiating Grey zones: there was frequent discussion of the limits of tests, interpretation of symptoms, and the limits of proposed operative strategies, and the resultant tensions of balancing ideal care vs pragmatic decision-making, and divergent goals of care. 3. Tailoring Treatment: identification of individual patient factors (both physiological and behavioural) and risks into collaborative decision-making. 4. Affording Failure: creating affordances in communication to openly discuss \'failure\' to eliminate infection and likely negative outcomes.
MDTM in the management of prosthetic joint infections serve multiple functions including: achieving interdisciplinary balance; effective grey zone management, tailoring reconfigured care; and most critically, recognition of \'failure\' to eliminate infection, a communicative affordance most likely leading to better care.

To explore the perception of mental healthcare workers about participation of inpatients during multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) and to determine which demographic and contextual factors are associated with this perception.
A cross-sectional multicentre study in 17 psychiatric hospitals with 701 mental healthcare workers was performed between 29 April and 19 May 2019. For measuring the perception of the mental healthcare workers, the Patient Participation during Multidisciplinary Team meetings Questionnaire was used.
93 % of the mental healthcare workers indicate that they are willing to allow patients to participate in a MTM. Most mental healthcare workers prefer an active role for the patient when participating in a MTM (93 %) and a collaborative role for the patient when making decisions in a MTM (75 %). Level of education, discipline, experience with patient participation in MTMs, working in a team where patient participation is applied, and recent training on patient participation, are associated with the mental healthcare worker\'s perception on patient participation in MTMs.
Mental healthcare workers report a great willingness to involve inpatients in MTMs. However, social workers, nurses, and pedagogues feel less competent and are less positive about the effects of patient participation in MTMs. Mental healthcare workers with recent training in patient participation and experience in patient participation in MTMs feel more competent and believe more often that the patient should fulfil a more autonomous role when participating in a MTM. These results can be used to understand and improve patient participation in MTMs in mental healthcare.

Survival of patients with colon cancer has increased in recent years due to advances in treatment and the implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTm). However, the organization of MDTm can be improved. The objectives of this work were to characterize patients with colon cancer who were not presented in MDTm and to analyse the reasons for their non-presentation.
The study was based on a retrospective cohort including patients with colon cancer diagnosed between 2014 and 2016. Risk factors for non-presentation in MDTm were investigated after 1:1 matching on age, gender and tumour location, using multivariate analysis.
amongst 1616 patients diagnosed with colon cancer, 20.5% were not presented in MDTm. The most common reasons for non-presentation were \'advanced age or poor general condition\' (22.6%) and \'superficial tumour\' (20.5%), while 20.8% of non-presentation remained unexplained. Non-presentation in MDTm was associated with ECOG PS of 2 (OR 0.51, 95%CI 0.32-0.81, p = 0.005), best supportive care (OR 0.05, 95%CI 0.00-0.38, p = 0.016) and early death (OR 0.09, 95%CI 0.04-0.19, p<0.001). By contrast, patients with symptomatic tumours were more likely to be presented in MDTm than patients participating in mass screening (OR 2.16, 95%CI 1.09-4.32, p = 0.028). Presentation was significantly associated with diagnosis by a digestive surgeon (OR 2.16, 95%CI 1.22-3.92, p = 0.01) and a high UICC stage.
This study identified factors associated with non-presentation in a multidisciplinary team meeting for colon cancer such as an advanced age or a superficial tumour, paving the way for targeted improvements.

The probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent according to the hospital of diagnosis varies for esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. Little is known about the factors contributing to this variation. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the differences between the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal and the treatment that was actually carried out and to qualitatively investigate the differences in treatment decision-making after the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal between hospitals.
To gain an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making, quantitative data (i.e., multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and treatment that was carried out) were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment comprised changes in the type of treatment option (i.e., curative or palliative, or no change) and were calculated according to the multivariable multilevel probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent (low, middle, and high). Qualitative data were collected from eight hospitals, including observations of 26 outpatient clinic consultations, 30 in-depth interviews with clinicians, seven focus groups with clinicians, and three focus groups with patients. Clinicians and patients\' perspectives were assessed using thematic content analysis.
The multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment were concordant in 97% of the cases. Clinicians\' implementation of treatment decision-making in clinical practice varied, which was mentioned by the clinicians to be due to the clinician\'s personality and values. Differences between clinicians consisted of discussing all treatment options versus only the best fitting treatment option and the extent of discussing the benefits and harms. Most patients aimed to undergo curative treatment regardless of the consequences, since they believed this could prolong their life.
Since changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting-proposed treatment and actual treatment were rarely observed, this study emphasizes the importance of an adequately formulated multidisciplinary team meeting proposal.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings formulate guideline-based individual treatment plans based on patient and disease characteristics and motivate reasons for deviation. Clinical decision trees could support multidisciplinary teams to adhere more accurately to guidelines. Every clinical decision tree is tailored to a specific decision moment in a care pathway and is composed of patient and disease characteristics leading to a guideline recommendation.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated (1) the concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations and (2) the completeness of patient and disease characteristics available during multidisciplinary team meetings to apply clinical decision trees such that it results in a guideline recommendation.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational concordance study evaluated 17 selected clinical decision trees, based on the prevailing Dutch guidelines for breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. In cases with sufficient data, concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations was classified as concordant, conditional concordant (multidisciplinary team specified a prerequisite for the recommendation) and non-concordant.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine multidisciplinary team meetings were attended in 8 different hospitals, and 355 cases were included. For 296 cases (83.4%), all patient data were available for providing an unconditional clinical decision tree recommendation. In 59 cases (16.6%), insufficient data were available resulting in provisional clinical decision tree recommendations. From the 296 successfully generated clinical decision tree recommendations, the multidisciplinary team recommendations were concordant in 249 (84.1%) cases, conditional concordant in 24 (8.1%) cases and non-concordant in 23 (7.8%) cases of which in 7 (2.4%) cases the reason for deviation from the clinical decision tree generated guideline recommendation was not motivated.
CONCLUSIONS: The observed concordance of recommendations between multidisciplinary teams and clinical decision trees and data completeness during multidisciplinary team meetings in this study indicate a potential role for implementation of clinical decision trees to support multidisciplinary team decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs.
OBJECTIVE: Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC).
METHODS: 3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the \"Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours\" were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival.
RESULTS: Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1-2.0], p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare teams often consist of geographically dispersed members. Virtual worlds can support immersive, high-quality, multimedia interaction between remote individuals; this study investigated use of virtual worlds to support remote healthcare quality improvement team meetings.
METHODS: Twenty individuals (12 female, aged 25-67 [M = 42.3, SD = 11.8]) from 6 healthcare quality improvement teams conducted collaborative tasks in virtual world or face-to-face settings. Quality of collaborative task performances were measured and questionnaires and interviews were used to record participants\' experiences of conducting the tasks and using the virtual world software.
RESULTS: Quality of collaborative task outcomes was high in both face-to-face and virtual world settings. Participant interviews elicited advantages for using virtual worlds in healthcare settings, including the ability of the virtual environment to support tools that cannot be represented in equivalent face-to-face meetings, and the potential for virtual world settings to cause improvements in group-dynamics. Reported disadvantages for future virtual world use in healthcare included the difficulty that people with weaker computer skills may experience with using the software. Participants tended to feel absorbed in the collaborative task they conducted within the virtual world, but did not experience the virtual environment as being \'real\'.
CONCLUSIONS: Virtual worlds can provide an effective platform for collaborative meetings in healthcare quality improvement, but provision of support to those with weaker computer skills should be ensured, as should the technical reliability of the virtual world being used. Future research could investigate use of virtual worlds in other healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: In France, the most severe bone and joint infections (BJI), called \"complex\" (CBJI), are assessed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM) in a reference center. However, the definition of CBJI, drawn up by the Health Ministry, is not consensual between physicians. The objective was to estimate the agreement for CBJI classification.
METHODS: Initially, five experts from one MTM classified twice, one-month apart, 24 cases as non-BJI, simple BJI or CBJI, using the complete medical record. Secondly, six MTMs classified the same cases using standardized information. Agreements were estimated using Fleiss and Cohen kappa (κ) coefficients.
RESULTS: Inter-expert agreement during one MTM was moderate (κ=0.49), and fair (κ=0.23) when the four non-BJIs were excluded. Intra-expert agreement was moderate (κ=0.50, range 0.27-0.90), not improved with experience. The overall inter-MTM agreement was moderate (κ=0.58), it was better between MTMs with professor (κ=0.65) than without (κ=0.51) and with longer median time per case (κ=0.60) than shorter (κ=0.47). When the four non-BJIs were excluded, the overall agreement decreased (κ=0.40).
CONCLUSIONS: The first step confirmed the heterogeneity of CBJI classification between experts. The seemingly better inter-MTM than inter-expert agreement could be an argument in favour of MTMs, which are moreover a privileged place to enhance expertise. Further studies are needed to assess these results as well as the quality of care and medico-economic outcomes after a MTM.

BACKGROUND: The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation.
METHODS: An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS: The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.