Impact of Technology on Quality of Thoracic Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE Complex cancers require discussion at multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) to determine the best management. This study assessed the impact of a tumor board (TB)–specific information technology platform on the quality of information presented, case discussions, and care plans at thoracic MCCs. METHODS Between September 2020 and February 2022, using a before-after study design, we prospectively collected data through direct observation of thoracic MCCs at an academic cancer center. In addition, we reviewed medical records to assess the rate of change in care plans, compliance of all care plans with national guidelines, concordance of treatment received with MCC recommendations, and time from MCC presentation to treatment. Observational data were collected using a validated tool, Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making. We used SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) for statistical analyses. RESULTS We identified 151 and 166 thoracic cancer cases before and after implementation of the information technology platform, respectively. The overall quality of case presentation and discussion, represented by a mean composite score (summation of individual variables scored on a 1-5 scale, poor to excellent), increased from 56.8 to 82.0 ( P < .001). This improvement was also observed across multiple subcomponents of the composite score all with P < .001. There was no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts in rate of change in care plans by the MCC, care plan compliance with national guidelines, and concordance of treatment received with MCC recommendations. CONCLUSION Technology improves the quality of information and discussion at TBs. However, this study did not demonstrate an impact on compliance with practice guidelines. Practitioners should explore the available TB technology platforms to optimize the conduct of MCCs in their respective institutions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.