Who is Being Assessed or Evaluated?:
Instrument Type:
Observer-based (e.g., rubric, rating tool, 360 degree feedback)
Notes for Type:
This is an (in situ) observational tool. The authors suggest recording MDT meetings for observation to allow for multiple observers and replay of events. Some of the criteria require integrated judgments based on materials (such as agendas) and objective aspects related to the organizational environment, as well as team behaviors exhibited during the MDT meetings.
Source of Data:
Health care providers, staff
Other
Notes for Data Sources:
The research team served as observers for the validation study. One oncology specialist registrar and one post-doctoral research psychologist were also employed as independent observers.
Notes for Content:
15 criteria were developed to assess MDT meetings:
- The Team
- Attendence
- Leadership: chairing of meeting
- Teamworking & Culture
- Inclusion of relevant team members
- Team sociability
- Mutual respect
- Tension and conflict
- Personal development & training
- Infrastructure for meetings
- Meeting venue
- Technology & Equipment
- Meeting organization and logistics
- Preparation prior to meetings
- Agenda
- Prioritization of complex cases
- Organization/admin during meetings
- Patient notes
- Case presentation
- Clinical decision making
- Patient centered care
- Treatment plan
An in-vivo proforma sheet is also provided to collect information regarding the observational context.
Instrument Length:
15 ratings; ratings took between 45 and 160 minutes depending on meeting length (average = 93 minutes).
Item Format:
11 items range from 1 (very poor) to 4 (very good); 3 items range from 1 (very poor/poor) to 3 (very good); and 1 item ranges from -4 (severe and sustained conflict) to 0 (no tension).
Administration:
An observer and video camera record each cancer MDT meeting. In the validation study, no delays or interruptions occurred and teams reported negligible impact on team member behavior. The observer records meeting context on "in-vivo proforma" sheet (see above, attached). The recordings are then played back for observers, and recording may be replayed until a decision on each criteria has been made. Most characteristics are rated on a case-by-case basis, and then aggregated into a team rating via global judgments based on notes from individual cases. Patient centered care, as an exception, was based on the frequency with which patient information was considered. Attendance, meeting agenda, and meeting venue and technology ratings were based on objective information recorded by the observer recording the meetings.
Scoring:
A single score from 11-58 is calculated for the tool by summing quality ratings for each characteristic.
Access:
Subscription (can be viewed in journal article)
Notes on Access:
The rating tool manual is shown in the BMC Cancer article, but you should contact the author to determine whether they or the journal owns the copyright. The "in vivo proforma" sheet is attached.
Start the Conversation
Every registered user can comment on website content.
Please login or register to comment