Nationale Umfrage zur Präsenz von interdisziplinären Fallkonferenzen bei interstitiellen Lungenerkrankungen (ILD-Boards) an Kliniken in Deutschland

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) represent an interdisciplinary clinical challenge and are not uncommonly associated with rheumatological diseases. Interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary meetings (ILD-MDM) provide a structured platform for interdisciplinary case discussions and decision making. Despite their great importance in patient care, data on the prevalence, structure and function of ILD-MDM in Germany are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the current status of ILD-MDM in German hospitals to gain insights into their composition, processes and potential for optimization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey under the auspices of the German Society for Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology (DGRh) and in collaboration with the German Respiratory Society (DGP) and the German Radiological Society (DRG). A standardized questionnaire captured information on the participating specialist disciplines, organizational structures as well as the content and challenges of local ILD-MDM. The analysis was conducted descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 125 physicians from 15 federal states in Germany participated. Pulmonologists (93.6 %), radiologists (86.4 %), rheumatologists (59.2 %) and pathologists (57.6 %) are the most commonly represented members of ILD-MDM. The majority of ILD-MDMs are conducted either in person (50 %) or in a hybrid format (31.5 %) and are held on a weekly basis (41.1 %). Of all patient cases discussed, two thirds receive a definitive diagnosis and treatment recommendation. CONCLUSION: The findings reveal a high acceptance and prevalence of ILD-MDM in Germany but also highlight potential areas for improvement, particularly regarding interdisciplinary participation, technical infrastructure and standardization.

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