Practice Patterns Regarding Multidisciplinary Cancer Management and Suggestions for Further Refinement: Results from a National Survey in Korea
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose This study was conducted to explore the process and operation of a cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) after the reimbursement decision in Korea, and to identify ways to overcome the major barriers to effective and sustainable MDTs. Materials and Methods Approximately 1,000 cancer specialists, including medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists in general hospitals in Korea were invited to complete the survey. The questionnaire covered the following topics: organizational structure of MDTs, candidates for consulting, the clinical decision-making initiative, and responsibility for dealing with legal disputes. Results We collected a total of 179 responses (18%) from physicians at institutions where an MDT approach was active. A surgical oncologist (91%), internist (90%), radiologist (89%), radiation oncologist (86%), pathologist (71%), and trainees (20%) regularly participated in MDT operations. Approximately 55% of respondents stated that MDTs met regularly. In cases of a split opinion, the physician in charge (69%) or chairperson (17%) made the final decision, and most (86%) stated they followed the final decision. About 15% and 32% of respondents were “very satisfied” and “satisfied,” respectively, with the current MDT’s operations. Among 38 institutional representatives, 34% responded that the MDT operation became more active and 18% stated an MDT was newly implemented after the reimbursement decision. Conclusion The reimbursement decision invigorated MDT operations in almost half of eligible hospitals. Dissatisfaction regarding current MDTs was over 50%, and the high discordance rates regarding risk sharing suggest that it is necessary to revise the current system of MDTs.
Abstract
Purpose This study was conducted to explore the process and operation of a cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) after the reimbursement decision in Korea, and to identify ways to overcome the major barriers to effective and sustainable MDTs. Materials and Methods Approximately 1,000 cancer specialists, including medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists in general hospitals in Korea were invited to complete the survey. The questionnaire covered the following topics: organizational structure of MDTs, candidates for consulting, the clinical decision-making initiative, and responsibility for dealing with legal disputes. Results We collected a total of 179 responses (18%) from physicians at institutions where an MDT approach was active. A surgical oncologist (91%), internist (90%), radiologist (89%), radiation oncologist (86%), pathologist (71%), and trainees (20%) regularly participated in MDT operations. Approximately 55% of respondents stated that MDTs met regularly. In cases of a split opinion, the physician in charge (69%) or chairperson (17%) made the final decision, and most (86%) stated they followed the final decision. About 15% and 32% of respondents were “very satisfied” and “satisfied,” respectively, with the current MDT’s operations. Among 38 institutional representatives, 34% responded that the MDT operation became more active and 18% stated an MDT was newly implemented after the reimbursement decision. Conclusion The reimbursement decision invigorated MDT operations in almost half of eligible hospitals. Dissatisfaction regarding current MDTs was over 50%, and the high discordance rates regarding risk sharing suggest that it is necessary to revise the current system of MDTs.
참고문헌 (13)
- Gouveia J, "Improving cancer control in the European Union : conclusions from the Lisbon round-table under the Portuguese EU Presidency, 2007", Eur J Cancer, 44, pp.1457~1462 (2008)
- European Partnership Action Against Cancer Consensus Group, "Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care", Eur J Cancer, 50, pp.475~480 (2014)
- Fleissig A, "Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?", Lancet Oncol, 7, pp.935~943 (2006)
- Ettinger DS, "NCCN guidelines insights: non-small cell lung cancer, version 4.2016", J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 14, pp.255~264 (2016)
- Benson AB 3rd, "Colon cancer, version 3.2014", J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 12, pp.1028~1059 (2014)
- Ajani JA, "Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015", J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 13, pp.194~227 (2015)
- Pfister DG, "Head and neck cancers, version 1.2015", J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 13, pp.847~855 (2015)
- 김도연, "Survey of Medical Oncology Status in Korea (SOMOS-K): A National Survey of Medical Oncologists in the Korean Association for Clinical Oncology (KACO)", Cancer Research and Treatment, 49(3), pp.588~594 (2017), 대한암학회
- Pawlik TM, "Evaluating the impact of a single-day multidisciplinary clinic on the management of pancreatic cancer", Ann Surg Oncol, 15, pp.2081~2088 (2008)
- Bjegovich-Weidman M, "Establishing a community-based lung cancer multidisciplinary clinic as part of a large integrated health care system: aurora health care", J Oncol Pract, 6, pp.e27~e30 (2010)
- Hammond DB, "Multidisciplinary cancer care in a community hospital setting : challenges and rewards", J Oncol Pract, 6, pp.281~283 (2010)
- Coory M, "Systematic review of multidisciplinary teams in the management of lung cancer", Lung Cancer, 60, pp.14~21 (2008)
- Kesson EM, "Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women", BMJ, 344, pp.e2718~ (2012)