Using an Adapted Tumor Board Evaluation Tool for Quality Assessment of a Thoracic Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference: A Pilot Study

Abstract

PURPOSE Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) are crucial for the management of complex oncology patients. Tools to evaluate MCC performance are needed. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the applicability of an existing validated performance assessment tool to evaluate the quality of thoracic MCCs (T-MCCs). METHODS Data were collected from weekly T-MCCs over a 5-week period using the MCC Performance Assessment Tool and a self-assessment survey. Audio recordings were used to supplement observation notes. Case presentation, discussion duration, decision making contribution, recommendations, and consensus were captured. Quality of information and contribution were rated on a 1-5 scale. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to calculate means and composite scores representing overall MCC performance. RESULTS A total of 44 cases were observed at the T-MCC with the mean presentation and discussion time of 6 minutes and 22 seconds. Quality of case history, radiologic and pathological information, and reason for case discussion were rated above average (>3), whereas inclusion of comorbidities and patient views were rated below average. Surgical oncologists had a higher discussion contribution compared with medical and radiation oncologists (3.6 v 2.9 and 2.4, respectively). The overall mean composite score was 55.9 (deemed average) with no cases categorized as poor or excellent. Radiologists and pathologists had mean preparation times of 81.7 and 144.0 minutes, respectively. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the applicability of a previously validated tool to assess the quality of a T-MCC at an academic comprehensive cancer center. The tool was found to be useful in identifying elements of the T-MCC process that needed improvement.