Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a rare autosomal dominant genetic disorder associated with mutations in TSC1 and TSC2 genes, upregulation of mammalian target of rapamycin signaling, and subsequent tumor formation in various organs. Due to the many manifestations of TSC and their potential complications, management requires the expertise of multiple medical disciplines. A multidisciplinary care approach is recommended by consensus guidelines. Use of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) has been shown to be beneficial in treating other complex diseases, such as cancer. In a lifelong disease such as TSC, an MDT may facilitate the transition from pediatric to adult care. However, little guidance exists in the literature regarding how to organize an MDT in TSC. Methods To discuss the best approach to assembling an MDT, this project was initiated in October 2017 with a meeting of 12 physicians from various specialties and various countries. Following this first meeting, the experts generated statements on the most important aspects to implement in establishing an MDT for TSC by 3 rounds of selection using a Delphi process via electronic correspondence. Finally, TSC patient advocates reviewed the findings and provided additional insights from a patient perspective. Results A 3-step roadmap was recommended, starting with identifying a single individual to begin organizing care (Step 1), then establishing a small core team (Step 2), and finally, establishing a larger multi-disciplinary team (Step 3). Because of the multisystemic nature of TSC, the MDT should include specialists such as a neurologist, a neurosurgeon, a nephrologist, a urologist, a pulmonologist, an ophthalmologist, a cardiologist, a dermatologist, a geneticist, and a psychiatrist/psychologist. The MDT should recommend a care plan for each patient based on the individual’s needs and in consultation with him/her or his/her family. Some of the most important aspects of an MDT that were agreed upon included identifying a case manager to help coordinate care, providing access to health care professionals of varying specialties, and including a lead physician who takes medical responsibility for patients’ overall care. Conclusions The results of our consensus provide guidance to support the initiation of an MDT in TSC.

Malnourished older inpatients referred to a nutrition support team (NST) usually receive multidisciplinary oral health management during NST intervention. However, the effects of multidisciplinary oral health management on the nutrition-intake method and oral health in these patients remain unclear. This longitudinal study aimed to investigate the effects of NST-mediated multidisciplinary oral health management on the nutrition-intake methods, oral health, and the systemic and oral factors influencing the changes in the nutrition-intake method. A total of 117 inpatients (66 men, 51 women, mean age, 71.9 ± 12.5 years) who underwent NST-mediated multidisciplinary oral health management between April 2016 and July 2019 were enrolled. Demographic data and Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS), Dysphagia Severity Scale (DSS), and Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) scores at the time of referral to the NST and completion of the NST intervention were evaluated. After multidisciplinary NST intervention, FOIS, DSS, and OHAT scores showed significant improvements (p < 0.001). Even after adjusting the results for systemic parameters, FOIS score improvement correlated positively with the length of NST intervention (p = 0.030) and DSS score improvement (p < 0.001) as well as OHAT score improvement (p = 0.047). NST interventions with multidisciplinary oral health management could improve the nutrition-intake method.

Background With treatment strategies for cancer constantly evolving, the multidisciplinary team (MDT) plays a key role in optimizing cancer care, but its real‐world impact on survival remains unclear. This study aims to examine the impact of MDT on overall survival (OS) among patients with stage IV non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on real‐world data including all eligible patients. Method Patients with stage IV NSCLC who were admitted for the first time to Shandong Cancer Hospital from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 were divided into MDT group and non‐MDT group according to MDT meeting involvement. Follow‐up period extended from January 1, 2021, to May 31, 2024. Kaplan–Meier curves and log‐rank tests were used to analyze survival differences, while Cox proportional hazards models were employed to identify factors associated with overall survival. Result One thousand six hundred and sixty‐four patients were included. No statistical differences were found between the MDT group (n = 1238) and the Non‐MDT group (n = 426) in baseline characteristics, but differences were observed in treatment modalities. The MDT group exhibited a longer median overall survival compared to the Non‐MDT group (26.25 vs. 21.42 months; log‐rank χ2  = 4.93, p = 0.03). Furthermore, MDT was associated with a reduction in the risk of mortality (adjusted HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75–0.99; p < 0.05). Conclusion MDT can effectively reduce mortality risk. Future implementation requires recognizing its potential additional benefits and developing tailored strategies.

Background Tumor Boards (TBs) are Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in which different specialists work together closely sharing clinical decisions in cancer care. The composition is variable, depending on the type of tumor discussed. As an organizational tool, MDTs are thought to optimize patient outcomes and to improve care performance. The aim of the study was to perform an umbrella review summarizing the available evidence on the impact of TBs on healthcare outcomes and processes. Methods Pubmed and Web of Science databases were investigated along with a search through citations. The only study design included was systematic review. Only reviews published after 1997 concerning TBs and performed in hospital settings were considered. Two researchers synthetized the studies and assessed their quality through the AMSTAR2 tool. Results Five systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2017 were retrieved. One review was focused on gastrointestinal cancers and included 16 studies; another one was centered on lung cancer and included 16 studies; the remaining three studies considered a wide range of tumors and included 27, 37 and 51 studies each. The main characteristics about format and members and the definition of TBs were collected. The decisions taken during TBs led to changes in diagnosis (probability to receive a more accurate assessment and staging), treatment (usually more appropriate) and survival (not unanimous improvement shown). Other outcomes less highlighted were quality of life, satisfaction and waiting times. Conclusions The study showed that the multidisciplinary approach is the best way to deliver the complex care needed by cancer patients; however, it is a challenge that requires organizational and cultural changes and must be led by competent health managers who can improve teamwork within their organizations. Further studies are needed to reinforce existing literature concerning health outcomes. Evidence on the impact of TBs on clinical practices is still lacking for many aspects of cancer care. Further studies should aim to evaluate the impact on survival rates, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Regular studies should be carried out and new process indicators should be defined to assess the impact and the performance of TBs more consistently.

Teamwork, as the preferred method of cooperation in healthcare, became prevalent in the 1960s, and since then has been universally recognized as a measure to improve the quality of healthcare. Research indicates that medical care based on interdisciplinary cooperation is associated with increased patient safety, lower hospitalization rates, and reduced rates of complications and medical errors. Furthermore, it enhances the coordination of care and improves patient access to medical services. This model of providing medical care also results in considerable benefits for medical professionals. These include greater job satisfaction and a reduced risk of professional burnout syndrome. Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the opinions of medical students with regard to cooperation in the interdisciplinary team, as well as the factors affecting the formation of opinions. Material and methods: The study was conducted using the Polish version of the questionnaire Attitudes Towards Interprofessional Health Care Teams. The study involved 1266 participants, including students of medicine (n = 308), midwifery (n = 348), nursing (n = 316) and physiotherapy (n = 294). Results: According to the opinions of the students participating in the study, the therapeutic process based on the interdisciplinary model improves the quality of medical care provided, increases patient safety, and improves communication between members of the therapeutic team. The factors affecting the assessment of cooperation in interdisciplinary medical care teams included the faculty and the year of studies, gender, as well as participation in the multidisciplinary courses. Conclusions: Students recognize the need for interdisciplinary medical teams. The training of future medical professionals should incorporate the elements of interprofessional education. This form of education allows students to develop both a professional identity and identification with their own profession, as well as encourages teamwork skills and shapes the attitude of openness towards representatives of other medical professions. However, in order to provide the students with the relevant knowledge, skills and competencies, it is essential to respect their diversity in terms of the faculty, as well as to account for the impact of gender and the year of studies which may affect their readiness to engage in teamwork.

Background Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs’ efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01–01-1990 to 09–11-2021), using different descriptions of ‘MDTM’ and ‘neoplasm’ as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author. Results Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs. Conclusions MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.

The treatment of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is extremely complex, requiring a comprehensive approach that involves a variety of different healthcare professionals. Several studies have shown that a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is useful to achieve good clinical outcomes, reducing major and minor amputation and increasing the chance of healing. Despite this, the multidisciplinary approach is not always a recognized treatment strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of an MDT approach on major adverse limb events, healing, time-to-heal, all-cause mortality, and other clinical outcomes in patients with active DFUs. The present meta-analysis was performed for the purpose of developing Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot with the support of the Italian Society of Diabetology (Società Italiana di Diabetologia, SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD). The study was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. All randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with a duration of at least 26 weeks, which compared the MDT approach with any other organizational strategy in the management of patients with DFUs were considered. Animal studies were excluded. A search of Medline and Embase databases was performed up until the May 1st, 2023. Patients managed by an MDT were reported to have better outcomes in terms of healing, minor and major amputation, and survival in comparison with those managed using other approaches. No data were found on quality of life, returning-to-walking, and emergency admission. Authors concluded that the MDT may be effective in improving outcomes in patients with DFUs.

Aim We report results from a 5-week MDT treatment programme, with individualised sessions, for a selected group of patients with FNSD, delivered in a neuropsychiatric outpatient setting. Primary aims were to (1) reduce symptoms, (2) improve functional performance and (3) improve health status. Methods Treatment involved individual sessions of neuropsychiatry, cognitive behavioural therapy, physiotherapy, occupational-therapy, education and family meetings. Outcome measures collected at the beginning and end of treatment and at 6 months, were patient and clinician reported. Aims were assessed by the following: symptom reduction (PHQ15, PHQ9, GAD7, SPIN, Rosenberg); health and social functioning (HONOS, WSAS); functional performance (COPM); health status (EQ-5D-5L) and patient-rated perception of improvement (CGI). Results Analyses of 78 patients completing the programme and attending a 6-month review revealed high-baseline levels of disability compared to EQ-5DL population norms and high rates of disability and psychopathology as indicated by the WSAS and mental health indices (PHQ9, GAD7, SPIN, Rosenberg’s self-esteem). At baseline, 92.3% met the IAPT caseness threshold for depression and 71% met the IAPT caseness threshold for anxiety. A Friedman ANOVA over the three time points and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated statistically significant improvements from admission to discharge and admission to 6-month follow-up. Sustained improvements were seen in somatic symptoms (PHQ15), depression (PHQ9), anxiety (GAD7), health and social functioning (HONOS), functionality (COPM), health status (EQ-5D-5L) and patient-rated clinical global improvement (CGI). Conclusion An MDT can effectively deliver an outpatient programme for FNSD which can serve as an alternative to costlier inpatient programmes. Early identification and treatment of co-morbidities is advised.

Background The complexity of the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) multidisciplinary team (MDT) is continually growing, leading to rising clinician workload, time pressures, and demands. This increases heterogeneity or ‘noise’ within decision-making for patients with oesophageal cancer (OC) and may lead to inconsistent treatment decisions. In recent decades, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and more specifically the branch of machine learning (ML) has led to a paradigm shift in the perceived utility of statistical modelling within healthcare. Within oesophageal cancer (OC) care, ML techniques have already been applied with early success to the analyses of histological samples and radiology imaging; however, it has not yet been applied to the MDT itself where such models are likely to benefit from incorporating information-rich, diverse datasets to increase predictive model accuracy. Methods This review discusses the current role the MDT plays in modern UGI cancer care as well as the utilisation of ML techniques to date using histological and radiological data to predict treatment response, prognostication, nodal disease evaluation, and even resectability within OC. Results The review finds that an emerging body of evidence is growing in support of ML tools within multiple domains relevant to decision-making within OC including automated histological analysis and radiomics. However, to date, no specific application has been directed to the MDT itself which routinely assimilates this information. Conclusions The authors feel the UGI MDT offers an information-rich, diverse array of data from which ML offers the potential to standardise, automate, and produce more consistent, data-driven MDT decisions.