Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians
Do you wish to request the book?
Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians
2023
Overview
Objectives To survey academic and community physician preferences regarding the virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for further improvement and expansion. Study Design This anonymous 14‐question survey was sent to individuals that participated in the head and neck virtual MTBs. The survey was sent via email beginning August 3, 2021, through October 5, 2021. Setting The University of Maryland Medical Center and regional practices in the state of Maryland. Methods Survey responses were recorded and presented as percentages. Subset analysis was performed to obtain frequency distributions by facility and provider type. Results There were 50 survey responses obtained with a response rate of 56%. Survey participants included 11 surgeons (22%), 19 radiation oncologists (38%), and 8 medical oncologists (16%), amongst others. More than 96% of participants found the virtual MTB to be useful when discussing complex cases and impactful to future patient care. A majority of respondents perceived a reduction in time to adjuvant care (64%). Community and academic physician responses strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improved communication (82% vs 73%), provided patient‐specific information for cancer care (82% vs 73%), and improved access to other specialties (66% vs 64%). Academic physicians, more so than community physicians, strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improves access to clinical trial enrollment (64% vs 29%) and can be useful in obtaining CME (64% vs 55%). Conclusion Academic and community physicians view the virtual MTB favorably. This platform can be adapted regionally and further expanded to improve communication between physicians and improve multidisciplinary care for patients.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
