This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kee, F. Articles by Leathem, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kee, F. Articles by Leathem, R. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Lung Cancer Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Decision Making in a Multidisciplinary Cancer Team: Does Team Discussion Result in Better Quality Decisions?

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast

Tracy Owen, MFPH

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast

Ruth Leathem, RN

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast

To establish whether treatment recommendations made by clinicians concur with the best outcomes predicted from their prognostic estimates and whether team discussion improves the quality or outcome of their decision making, the authors studied real-time decision making by a lung cancer team. Clinicians completed pre- and postdiscussion questionnaires for 50 newly diagnosed patients. For each patient/doctor pairing, a decision model determined the expected patient outcomes from the clinician’s prognostic estimates. The difference between the expected utility of the recommended treatment and the maximum utility derived from the clinician’s predictions of the outcomes (the net utility loss) following all potential treatment modalities was calculated as an indicator of quality of the decision. The proportion of treatment decisions changed by the multidisciplinary team discussion was also calculated. Insofar as the change in net utility loss brought about by multidisciplinary team discussion was not significantly different from zero, team discussion did not improve the quality of decision making overall. However, given the modest power of the study, these findings must be interpreted with caution. In only 23 of 87 instances (26%) in which an individual specialist’s initial treatment preference differed from the final group judgment did the specialist finally concur with the group treatment choice after discussion. This study does not support the theory that team discussion improves decision making by closing a knowledge gap.

Key Words: decision making • multidisciplinary • team • cancer

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 24, No. 6, 602-613 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04271047


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Tschan, N. K. Semmer, A. Gurtner, L. Bizzari, M. Spychiger, M. Breuer, and S. U. Marsch Explicit Reasoning, Confirmation Bias, and Illusory Transactive Memory: A Simulation Study of Group Medical Decision Making Small Group Research, June 1, 2009; 40(3): 271 - 300. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F Kee, T Owen, and R Leathem Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team? J Epidemiol Community Health, April 1, 2007; 61(4): 308 - 313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Gupta Multidisciplinary Clinics in Oncology: The Hidden Pitfalls J. Oncol. Pract, March 1, 2007; 3(2): 72 - 73. [Full Text] [PDF]