Development of a peer-review framework for cancer multidisciplinary meetings

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: There is no mechanism in place for monitoring or quality improvement of cancer multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in Australia. Aim: To develop a peer-review process for quality improvement of MDM. Methods: This project involved three phases: (i) development of a draft peer-review framework, supporting documents and peer-review process; (ii) consultation with key stakeholders; (iii) refinement of the framework, documents and processes following a pilot study with three MDM. Results: Feedback indicated that specific standards included in the framework needed to allow the peer reviewers to be flexible relative to the circumstances of the individual MDM. Conversely, feedback identified the need for clear, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the conduct of MDM, with accepted standards and objective measures of performance. MDM members were divided about the need to employ peer reviewers from the tumour stream of the MDM under review but agreed that closer involvement of the team under review to support the implementation of recommendations is warranted. Conclusions: We developed an adaptable peer-review framework and process using the current available evidence and guidance. While further research is needed to establish what constitutes best practice in MDM and which processes contribute to improved patient outcomes, the structured peer-review process we describe, when modified using the disease-relevant evidence, could be utilised more broadly as a quality improvement tool.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)529-535
    Number of pages7
    JournalInternal Medicine Journal
    Volume47
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 14 May 2017

    Fingerprint

    Peer Review
    Quality Improvement
    Neoplasms
    Practice Guidelines
    Evidence-Based Practice
    Referral and Consultation
    Research

    Cite this

    @article{b667f1049fb84fc1a2d2635ca922b487,
    title = "Development of a peer-review framework for cancer multidisciplinary meetings",
    abstract = "Background: There is no mechanism in place for monitoring or quality improvement of cancer multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in Australia. Aim: To develop a peer-review process for quality improvement of MDM. Methods: This project involved three phases: (i) development of a draft peer-review framework, supporting documents and peer-review process; (ii) consultation with key stakeholders; (iii) refinement of the framework, documents and processes following a pilot study with three MDM. Results: Feedback indicated that specific standards included in the framework needed to allow the peer reviewers to be flexible relative to the circumstances of the individual MDM. Conversely, feedback identified the need for clear, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the conduct of MDM, with accepted standards and objective measures of performance. MDM members were divided about the need to employ peer reviewers from the tumour stream of the MDM under review but agreed that closer involvement of the team under review to support the implementation of recommendations is warranted. Conclusions: We developed an adaptable peer-review framework and process using the current available evidence and guidance. While further research is needed to establish what constitutes best practice in MDM and which processes contribute to improved patient outcomes, the structured peer-review process we describe, when modified using the disease-relevant evidence, could be utilised more broadly as a quality improvement tool.",
    keywords = "accreditation, multidisciplinary cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings, peer review, quality improvement",
    author = "Johnson, {Claire E.} and Neli Slavova-Azmanova and Christobel Saunders",
    year = "2017",
    month = "5",
    day = "14",
    doi = "10.1111/imj.13374",
    language = "English",
    volume = "47",
    pages = "529--535",
    journal = "Internal Medicine Journal (Print)",
    issn = "1444-0903",
    publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
    number = "5",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Development of a peer-review framework for cancer multidisciplinary meetings

    AU - Johnson, Claire E.

    AU - Slavova-Azmanova, Neli

    AU - Saunders, Christobel

    PY - 2017/5/14

    Y1 - 2017/5/14

    N2 - Background: There is no mechanism in place for monitoring or quality improvement of cancer multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in Australia. Aim: To develop a peer-review process for quality improvement of MDM. Methods: This project involved three phases: (i) development of a draft peer-review framework, supporting documents and peer-review process; (ii) consultation with key stakeholders; (iii) refinement of the framework, documents and processes following a pilot study with three MDM. Results: Feedback indicated that specific standards included in the framework needed to allow the peer reviewers to be flexible relative to the circumstances of the individual MDM. Conversely, feedback identified the need for clear, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the conduct of MDM, with accepted standards and objective measures of performance. MDM members were divided about the need to employ peer reviewers from the tumour stream of the MDM under review but agreed that closer involvement of the team under review to support the implementation of recommendations is warranted. Conclusions: We developed an adaptable peer-review framework and process using the current available evidence and guidance. While further research is needed to establish what constitutes best practice in MDM and which processes contribute to improved patient outcomes, the structured peer-review process we describe, when modified using the disease-relevant evidence, could be utilised more broadly as a quality improvement tool.

    AB - Background: There is no mechanism in place for monitoring or quality improvement of cancer multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in Australia. Aim: To develop a peer-review process for quality improvement of MDM. Methods: This project involved three phases: (i) development of a draft peer-review framework, supporting documents and peer-review process; (ii) consultation with key stakeholders; (iii) refinement of the framework, documents and processes following a pilot study with three MDM. Results: Feedback indicated that specific standards included in the framework needed to allow the peer reviewers to be flexible relative to the circumstances of the individual MDM. Conversely, feedback identified the need for clear, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the conduct of MDM, with accepted standards and objective measures of performance. MDM members were divided about the need to employ peer reviewers from the tumour stream of the MDM under review but agreed that closer involvement of the team under review to support the implementation of recommendations is warranted. Conclusions: We developed an adaptable peer-review framework and process using the current available evidence and guidance. While further research is needed to establish what constitutes best practice in MDM and which processes contribute to improved patient outcomes, the structured peer-review process we describe, when modified using the disease-relevant evidence, could be utilised more broadly as a quality improvement tool.

    KW - accreditation

    KW - multidisciplinary cancer care

    KW - multidisciplinary team meetings

    KW - peer review

    KW - quality improvement

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019259201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/imj.13374

    DO - 10.1111/imj.13374

    M3 - Article

    VL - 47

    SP - 529

    EP - 535

    JO - Internal Medicine Journal (Print)

    JF - Internal Medicine Journal (Print)

    SN - 1444-0903

    IS - 5

    ER -