Decision making in a multidisciplinary cancer team: Does team discussion result in better quality decisions?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 602-613

  Kee, Frank ^a   Owen, Tracy ^a   Leathem, Ruth ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer; Decision making; Multidisciplinary; Team

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG CARCINOMA; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PREDICTION; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT CARE TEAM; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 8744243134     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04271047     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Jones P, Roelofsma MP. The potential for social, contextual and group biases in team decision making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics 2000;43(8):1129-52.
2. Witte EH, Davis JH, eds. Understanding Group Behaviour Consensual Action by Small Groups. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996.
3. Expert Advisory Group Report on Cancer. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services: a report by the Expert Advisory Group on cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. London: Department of Health; 1995.
4. Standing Medical Advisory Committee. Management of lung cancer: current clinical practice. London: Department of Health, 1994.
5. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of Lung Cancer [SIGN Publication No 23]. Edinburgh (UK): Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 1998.
6. Lung Cancer Working Party of the British Thoracic Society Standards for Care Committee. BTS recommendations to respiratory physicians for organizing the care of patients with lung cancer. Thorax. 1998;53 Suppl 1:S1-8.
7. National Health Service Executive. Guidance on Commissioning Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in Lung Cancer-the research evidence. Leeds: Department of Health, 1998.
8. Cartman ML, Hatfield AC, Muers MF, et al., on behalf of the Yorkshire Cancer Management Study Group, Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service. Lung cancer: district active treatment rates affect survival. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:424-9.
9. Gregor A, Thomson CS, Brewster DH, et al., on behalf of the Scottish Cancer Trials Lung Group and the Scottish Cancer Therapy Network. Management and survival of patients with lung cancer in Scotland diagnosed in 1995: results of a national population based study. Thorax. 2001;56:212-7.
10. Murphy M, Black N, Lamping D, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i-iv, 1-88.
11. McClellan M, Brook R. Appropriateness of care: a comparison of global and outcome methods to set standards. Med Care. 1992;30:565-86.
12. Oddone E, Samsa G, Matchar D. Global judgments versus decision model facilitated judgments: are experts internally consistent? Med Decis Making. 1994;14:19-26.
13. Kuntz K, Tsvet J, Weinstein M, et al. Expert panel vs decision analytic recommendations for post discharge coronary angiography after myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1999;282:2246-51.
14. Bernstein SJ, Hofer TP, Meijler A, et al. Setting standards for effectiveness: a comparison of expert panels and decision analysis. Int J Qual Health Care. 1997;9:255-63.
15. Muers MF, Shevlin P, Brown J, on behalf of the participating members of the Thoracic Group of the Yorkshire Cancer Organisation. Thorax. 1996;51:894-902.
16. Poses R. One size does not fit all: questions to answer before intervening to change physician behaviour. J Qual Improv. 1999;25:486-95.
17. Laird N, Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:5-30.
18. Silverstein MD, Ballard DJ. Expert panel assessment of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: global judgment versus probability estimation. J Health Service Res Policy. 1998;3:134-40.
19. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D. Who's afraid of Thomas Bayes? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:731-9.
20. Freedman L. Bayesian statistical methods: a natural way to assess clinical evidence. BMJ. 1996;313:569-70.
21. Lindley DV, Tversky A, Brown RV. On the elicitation of probability assessments. J R Stat Soc A. 1979;142:146-80.
22. Burton P. Helping doctors to draw appropriate inferences from the analysis of medical studies. Stat Med. 1994;13:1699-713.
23. Wolpert R. Eliciting and combining subjective judgments about uncertainty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:537-57.
24. Berthelot JM, Will BP, Evans WK, et al. Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1321-29.
25. Brundage MD, Groome PA, Feldman-Stewart D, et al. Decision analysis in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: is it useful? J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:873-83.
26. Cohen BJ. Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:1-6.
27. Hinsz VB. Group decision making with responses of a quantitative nature: the theory of social decision schemes for quantities. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;80:28-49.
28. Homes M, Rovner D, Schmitt N, et al. Patient decision support intervention: increased consistency with decision analytic models. Med Care. 1999;37:270-84.
29. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Rovner D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;3:CD001431.
30. Hogarth RM. Judgment and Choice. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1987.
31. Fischoff B, Johnson S. Organisational Decision Making. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1997.
32. Engstrom B. Communication and decision making in a study of a multidisciplinary team conference with registered nurses as conference chairman. Int J Nurs Stud. 1986;23:299-314.
33. Fried B, Leatt P, Deber R, Wilson E. Multidisciplinary teams in healthcare: lessons from oncology and renal teams. Healthc Manage Forum. 1988;1:28-34.
34. Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape L, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996;6:512-23.
35. Coulter I, Adams A, Shekelle P. Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels: a comparison of a multi- and single disciplinary panel. Health Serv Res. 1995;30:577-91.
36. Hogarth R. A note on aggregating opinion. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1978;21:40-6.
37. Ashton RH. Combining the judgments of experts: how many and which ones? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1986;38:405-14.
38. Regan J, Yarnold J, Jones PW, et al. Palliation and life quality in lung cancer: how good are clinicians in judging treatment outcome? Br J Cancer. 1991;64:396-400.